1951-03-14

[Stage Direction]
"the ensign" of march 17, 1951
Mr. R. R. Knight (Saskatoon):: Mr. Speaker, ,1 rise on a question of privilege. On February 27, 1951, I made the statement in this house that certain Indians wished education divorced from the churches. This statement has been misrepresented in one publication, and in consequence may be widely misunderstood.
What I stated was merely fact. I refer to, first, the brief of the protective association for Indians and their treaties, addressed to the minister in September, 1945, at pages 26, 33, and 34; second, to the memorial on Indian affairs presented by the Indian association of Alberta in September, 1945, at pages 5 and 7. In my speech on February 27 I paid tribute to the work of the churches and their missionaries in the field of education. That will be found in Hansard of this session at page 725. In my speech on federal aid to education on February 22-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: I said at page 601-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think the hon. member should be allowed to state his question of privilege.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: I said at page 601:
We believe of course that a child should be grounded in the faith of his father.
My point of privilege is that The Ensign, dated March 17, 1951, and circulated just yesterday, whose representative I understand sits in our press gallery, used the following words in reference to my remarks:
His remarks were termed astonishing by the Progressive Conservative member for St. John's West, W. J. Browne, who challenged Mr. Knight's statement that religious education should be done away with.
Neither did I say those words nor do I believe any such thing. The impression created by those words in regard to my own attitude is completely false. I hope and indeed feel confident from the nature of this newspaper that it will be fair, that it will
correct its statement and give to such correction as wide a circulation as it gave to the original statement.



PARLIAMENT HILL


Hon. Alphonse Fournier (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the hon. member for Simcoe North (Mr. Ferguson) asked who was responsible for the maintenance of Wellington street facing the government buildings. The answer is that the federal district commission has the responsibility for the repair and maintenance of sidewalks on the north side of Wellington street from the plaza to Bank street. This includes the boulevard on the north side, and on the south side in front of government-owned property only. It also has responsibility for the removal of snow from the sidewalks on the north side of Wellington street and on the south side in front of government property only. The maintenance, repair and removal of snow from the street proper is the responsibility of the city.


Some hon. Members:: What about the sand?



PAINTING BY HOBBEMA


Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I think you and other hon. members will feel as the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew) and I do, that it is desirable that there should be a permanent record of the appreciation felt by the government and people of Canada of the generous gift presented to our country by Her Majesty Queen Juliana, on behalf of the people of The Netherlands, of the beautiful painting, "The Two Water-mills", by Hobbema, which was unveiled today in the Hall of Fame of our parliament buildings by General H. D. G. Crerar in the presence of His Excellency the Governor General, His Excellency the Ambassador of The Netherlands, and the members of both houses of parliament, and which will hang there as a tribute to the valour of our Canadian forces who participated in the second great war, and particularly of the Canadian troops who, under the command of General Crerar, took such a brilliant part in the liberation of Holland.

Consumer Credit
I accordingly move, seconded by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew):
That the addresses delivered at the unveiling ceremony by His Excellency the Governor General, by General Crerar, and by His Excellency the Ambassador of The Netherlands, be appended to the official report of today's debates.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
(For text of addresses see appendix, pages 1262-3.)


Hon. Douglas Abbott (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to table a copy of order in council P.C. 1249 dated March 13, 1951, and made under the authority of the Consumer Credit (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1950. The initial regulations made under this act were published late in October and became effective on November 1 last. The terms and conditions laid down by these regulations respecting minimum down payments and maximum periods of credit were generally more restrictive than prevailing business practice, but were not as severe as those which we had during the war, nor have they been as restrictive as the revised American regulations which became effective a few months ago.
As hon. members are aware, there have been discussions recently between the Bank of Canada and the chartered banks regarding the most effective means of restraining the inflationary expansion of bank credit. As a result of these discussions one of the steps the chartered banks have taken is- to call a halt to further expansion of loans on the security of instalment finance paper.
In conjunction with this move, and with the same purpose of restraining inflationary credit expansion, the consumer credit regulations have been amended by the order in council which I have just tabled. The new regulations will come into effect next Monday, March 19.
The principal changes being introduced are:
First, in the case of motor cars the minimum down payment is increased from one-third of the cash price to one-half of the cash price.
Second, in the case of all other commodities affected by the regulations the minimum down payment is increased from one-fifth to one-third of the cash price.
Third, in all cases the minimum down payment will be not less than $10 instead of $5 under the former regulations.
Fourth, the maximum period of credit has been reduced from eighteen months to twelve

months, and the minimum size of instalment payments has been increased to $10 a month or $2.50 a week, as compared with $5 a month or $1.25 a week under the previous regulations.
Fifth, under what is known in the trade as a revolving credit plan, the minimum initial down payment is increased to $10, and wherever new purchases are made under existing credits the minimum monthly instalment is increased to $10.
Finally, as a result of varied representations and a further review of the effects of the present regulations we have decided that the consumer credit restrictions should not apply to the sale of books.
In their net effect the new regulations will be much stiffer than those now in effect, but except in the case of motor cars they will be no stiffer, and in some cases not quite so stiff as those in effect during the war. During the war we required a one-third down payment for cars, and if the amount remaining to be financed exceeded $500 the purchaser had fifteen months in which to complete his payments. Now we are requiring fifty per cent down and the balance spread over twelve months. Hon. members will realize, of course, that where an old car is being turned in, its trade-in value will normally constitute the greater part if not the whole of the required down payment.
In the case of other commodities our new regulations require one-third down and the balance over twelve months. During the war the same down payment was required, but the balance had to be paid in ten months, unless the amount to be financed exceeded $500.


Mr. Macdonnell (Greenwood):: I wonder
if the minister could say whether it has been possible to trace the effect to date of the restrictions on consumer credit made following the legislation of last September?


Douglas Charles Abbott: No, it is not possible to do that, Mr. Speaker. I think one could say, speaking in general terms, that the restrictions so far have only been moderately effective. They have not made any serious change in the volume of instalment sales.



YUKON TERRITORY


Mr. Speaker:: Yesterday, before the orders of the day were called, the member for Vancouver East (Mr. Maclnnis) asked a question which I thought was one that should have been placed on the order paper. Upon reading the question in Hansard, it seems to

me there is some urgency in connection with the matter which he has raised. In view of the fact that today we are not likely to reach orders of the day, may I suggest that the hon. member for Vancouver East ask his question at this time.


Mr. Angus Maclnnis (Vancouver East):: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I had an idea that when you saw my question in print you would approve my judgment. My question was to the Minister of Resources and Development, and was based on a telegram I received yesterday morning from Dawson city. The question is, has the government decided to move the seat of government for the new territorial council from Dawson to Whitehorse, and if so, is that being done in consultation with the Yukon territorial council?


Hon. Robert H. Winters (Minister of Resources and Development):: Mr. Speaker, the population of Whitehorse has been increasing steadily for some years. It is now a much larger centre than Dawson city. The development of Whitehorse, together with its geographic location, have made it the centre of economic activity and communications for the territory. Although the population of Dawson city is now not large, historic interest and tradition still make it an important tourist attraction. Moreover, it is the centre of an active gold mining industry. However, the greater development in the southern part of the territory made it inevitable that consideration should be given to establishing the seat of government in Whitehorse.
This matter has been under consideration and discussion with the commissioner of the Yukon territory for some time, and it has now been decided that the change should be made in order to enable the territorial government to give more efficient and expeditious administration of the affairs of the territory.


Mr. Pearkes:: Will the minister permit a supplementary question? Is there any danger of the seat of government of British Columbia being moved from Victoria to Vancouver for the same reason?



QUESTIONS

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)

Mr. Noseworlhy:: 1.	How many housing units and how many barracks and other buildings used to accommodate service personnel during the war (1939-45) have been (a) sold; (b) demolished, since 1945?
2.	What is the estimated number of service personnel that could be accommodated at one time in
Questions
all the housing units, barracks, etc., sold or demolished, since 1945?
3.	What is the estimated cost of construction during the war of housing units, barracks, etc., sold, and demolished, since 1945?
4.	What amount has been realized on the sale of such units or barracks sold since 1945?


Mr. Mcllraiih:: Mr. Speaker, to obtain such information as is available to answer this question would involve a detailed examination of some 2,500 files. In addition to that, the answer to part 4 of the question cannot be obtained because many of the materials sold from particular buildings had lost their identity.
There is some information, however, that can be obtained on this subject. I have spoken to the hon. member who asked the question, and I have agreed to make available such information as can be obtained and to help him frame another question that could be answered. I would therefore ask that this question be dropped.


Mr. Speaker:: Question dropped.


SELLING PRICES AND PAYMENTS TO GROWERS
Mr. MacLean (Cape Breton North and Victoria):: 1.	What was the average selling price per bushel for No. 1 wheat, during each of the years 1936, 1937, 1938, 1939 and 1940?
2.	What was the average price per bushel paid through the wheat pool to the wheat growers in the prairie provinces for their No. 1 wheat, during each of the years 1946, 1947, 1948, 1949 and 1950?


Mr. Mcllraith:: 1.	According to the annual "Reports on the Grain Trade of Canada", published by the dominion bureau of statistics, the following are the average Winnipeg open market closing prices for No. 1 northern wheat in store Fort William/Port Arthur for each of the crop years ended in 1936, 1937, 1938, 1939 and 1940:
1936		$ * 84|
1937		 1-22|
1938		 1 -314
1939		 -62
1940	  -76i
2.	The total price paid to date in the form of initial and adjustment payments, to wheat growers in the prairie provinces who delivered No. 1 northern wheat to the Canadian wheat board during each of the crop years ended in 1946, 1947, 1948, 1949 and 1950 was $1.75 per bushel in store Fort William/Port Arthur or Vancouver.
WHEAT-SHIPMENTS THROUGH CHURCHILL Mr. Wright:
1.	What amount of wheat shipped through the port of Churchill during the 1950 season was sold (a) under the world wheat agreement; (b) as class II wheat?

Questions
2.	What premium, if any, over the Port Arthur, Fort William price, was received for wheat shipped through the port of Churchill during the 1950 season under (a) the world wheat agreement; (b) class II wheat?


Mr. Mcllrailh:: 1.	Shipments through Churchill under
I.W.A., 6,767,743 bushels; shipments through Churchill under class II, nil.
2.	Outside of the wheat supplied to the United Kingdom under the terms of the Canada-United Kingdom agreement, the premium over the Fort William/Port Arthur price received for wheat shipped through the port of Churchill during the 1950 season ranged from 2 cents per bushel to 4 cents per bushel.


KRUPP WORKS
Mr. Herridge:: 1.	Have representations been made to the government, or any department thereof, by the German Krupp company or any of its members, employees, associates or agents with a view to carrying on business in Canada, either directly or through some other firm or individual?
2.	If so, has the government made any decision in the matter, and of what nature?


Mr. Mcllrailh:: 1.	A representative of the firm Friedrich Krupp called on officials of the Department of Trade and Commerce in the early part of March, 1951, with a view to exploring the possibility of finding markets in Canada for the products of his company.
2.	No decision required.


NAVAL SERVICE
Mr. Balcom:: 1.	Were plans and specifications prepared and tenders invited for (a) standard unit supply building, type A, Greenwood, Nova Scotia; (b) construction of fireproof barracks, H.M.C.S. Shearwater, Dartmouth, Nova Scotia?
2.	What are the names and addresses of firms invited to submit tenders for these projects?
3.	Have contracts been awarded?
4.	If so, what are the names and addresses of successful firms?


Mr. Mcllrailh:: 1.	(a) Yes. Standard unit supply building type A, Greenwood, Nova Scotia; plans and specifications prepared and tenders invited February 8, 1951; tenders closed March 9, 1951.
(b)	Construction of fireproof barracks, H.M.C.S. Shearwater, Dartmouth, Nova Scotia; plans and specifications prepared and tenders invited February 6, 1951; tenders close March 14, 1951.

2.	Public tender call was issued. In addition the following were advised that tenders would be called:
(a)	Greenwood, Nova Scotia
Fosberg & Mitchell Reg., Halifax, N.S.; F. J. Raskin Inc., Montreal, P.Q.; the Canadian Fairbaraks-Morse Co. Ltd., Halifax; ffm. V. Spencer & Son, Moncton, N.B.; Mr. Percy Ritchie, Upper Kent, N.B.; Bayside Construction Co. Ltd., Campbellton, N.B.; Sumner Propane Gas Ltd., Moncton, N.B.; Eastern Woodworkers Ltd., New Glasgow, N.S.; Tower Co. Ltd., 1411 Stanley St., Montreal, P.Q.; Diamond Construction Co. Ltd., Fredericton, N.B.; Modern Construction Co. Ltd., Box 516, Moncton, N.B.; Rodney Contractors Ltd., Yarmouth, N.S.; Terminal Construction Co. Ltd., 1012 Dominion Sq. Bldg., Montreal, Quebec; Raworth & Mollins Ltd., South Brookfield, N.S.; E. G. M. Cape & Co., Phillips Sq., Montreal, P.Q.; Acadia Construction Co. Ltd., Bridgewater, N.S.; M. F. Schurman Co. Ltd., Summerside, P.E.I.; J. H. Hicks & Sons, Bridgetown, N.S.; Kenney Construction Co., Yarmouth, N.S.; B. T. Weeks & Sons, Truro, N.S.; H. R. MacMillan Sales (Quebec) Ltd., Montreal, P.Q.; Municipal Spraying & Contracting Ltd., Halifax, N.S.; Lawrence Construction Co., Halifax, N.S.; LeBlanc Construction Co., Halifax, N.S.; Lyman E. Patton, Wellington, N.S.; Wallace Manufacturing Co. Ltd., Sussex, N.B.; Fundy Construction Co. Ltd., Halifax, N.S.; A. W. Allen & Sons, Middleton, N.S.; James P. Kelly, 11 Hemlock St., Halifax, N.S.; Ashfield Brothers, Fredericton, N.B.; North Shore Construction Co., Newcastle, N.B.; Worden Paving, Saint, John, N.B.; Annapolis Valley Construction Co., Halifax, N.S.; R. Ian MacDonald, Halifax, N.S.; Stephen Construction Co.; Saint John, N.B.; B. A. Tozer, Chatham, N.B.; Foundation Maritime Ltd., Halifax, N.S.; Enamel & Heating Products Ltd., Sackville, N.B.; Eastern Builders & Sales Ltd., Halifax, N.S.; O'Dell Construction Co., Fredericton, N.B.; Planet Construction Co., Fredericton, N.B.; Hammond Bros. Ltd., Halifax, N.S.
(b)	Shearwater, Dartmouth, N. S.
Mr. Percy Ritchie, Upper Kent, N. B.; Bayside Construction Co. Ltd., Campbellton, N.B.; Sumner Propane Gas Ltd., Moncton, N.B.; Eastern Woodworkers Ltd., New Glasgow, N.S.; Tower Co. Ltd., Montreal, Quebec; Diamond Construction Co. Ltd., Fredericton, N.B.; Freeman Construction Co. Ltd., Wood-side, N.S.; Modern Construction Co. Ltd., Moncton, N.B.; Rodney Contractors Ltd., Yarmouth; Terminal Construction Co. Ltd.,

Montreal, Quebec; Raworth & Mollins Ltd., South Brookfield, N.S.; E.G.M. Cape & Co., Montreal, Quebec; Acadia Construction Co. Ltd., Bridgewater, N.S.; M. F. Schurman, Co. Ltd., Summerside, P.E.I.; J. H. Hicks, & Sons, Bridgetown, N.S.; Kenney Construction Co. Ltd., Yarmouth; B. T. Weeks & Sons, Truro, N.S.; H. R. MacMillan Sales (Quebec) Ltd., Montreal, Quebec; Municipal Spraying & Contracting Ltd., Halifax, N.S.; Lawrence Construction Co., Halifax, N.S.; LeBlanc Construction Co., Halifax, N.S.; Mr. Lyman E. Patton, Wellington, N.S.; Wallace Manufacturing Co., Sussex, N.B.; Fundy Construction Co., Halifax, N.S.; A. W. Allen & Sons, Middleton, N.S.; Mr. James P. Kelly, Halifax, N.S.; Ashfield Bros., Fredericton, N.B.; North Shore Construction, Newcastle, N.B.; Worden Paving, Saint John, N.B.; Annapolis Valley Construction, Halifax, N.S.; Mr. R. Ian MacDonald, Halifax, N.S.; Stephen Construction Co., Saint John, N.B.; B. A. Tozer & Sons, Chatham, N.B.; Foundation Maritimes Ltd., Halifax, N.S.; Enamel & Heating Products Ltd., Sackville, N.B.; Zeller Contracting Co. Ltd., Hamilton, Ont.; Eastern Builders & Sales Ltd., Halifax, N.S.; O'Dell Construction Co., Fredericton, N.B.; Planet Construction Co., Fredericton, N.B.; Hammond Bros. Ltd., Halifax, N.S.; Fosberg & Mitchell Reg. Halifax, N.S.; F. J. Raskin Inc., Montreal, Quebec; The Canadian Fairbanks-Morse Co. Ltd., Halifax, N.S.; Wm. V. Spencer & Son, Moncton, N.B.
3.	No.
4.	See answer to No. 3.



CANADIAN ARMED FORCES


Mr. Nowlan:: 1.	Since December 1, 1950, has there been any change in the rate on which is based the income tax deductions from pay and allowances of members of the armed services of Canada?
2.	If so (a) when did such change become effective; (b) to what branches of the armed services does it apply; (c) what is the change in such rate; (d) what was or is the authority for making such change?


Mr. Blanchette:: 1.	The rate of income tax deductions was not changed. However, due to the increased rate of pay and allowances effective December 1, 1950, the amount of income tax deducted at source was increased effective January 1, 1951, and the increased pay and allowances for December was reported as taxable income for the year 1950.
2.	(a) The amount of taxable income and therefore the amount of tax payable increased
Questions
effective the date of the increase in pay and allowances, i.e., December 1, 1950.
(b)	To all branches.
(c)	The change in income tax would depend entirely on the taxable income of the individual which is governed by total income less exemptions.
(d)	The Income Tax Act and the income tax tables of deductions provided by the Department of National Revenue, taxation division.




Mr. Fulton:: 1.	What were the numbers of enlistments in the Royal Canadian Navy, the Canadian Army (active force), the Canadian Army (special force) and the Royal Canadian Air Force respectively, during each of the months of January and February, 1951?
2.	What were the totals of all releases from each service as above for the same months?


Mr. Blanchette:: January, 1951
	Enlist-	Releases
Royal Canadian Navy ..	ments . 288	156Canadian Army (active force) 	. 1606	198Canadian Army (special	force) 	. 81	234Royal Canadian Air Force 1321	66February.	, 1951Enlist-	ReleasesRoyal Canadian Navy ...	ments . 448	159Canadian Army (active force) 	. 1171	200Canadian Army (special force) 	. 29	286Royal Canadian Air Force 1226	56



COASTAL PROTECTION FACILITIES


Mr. Higgins:: 1.	Has the interdepartmental committee set up by the government to study Canada's existing coastal protection facilities (coastguard), and to recommend means of unifying and improving these services, made a report?
2.	If so, when will this report be available?


Mr. Benidickson:: 1.	Yes.
2.	On July 7, 1950, a joint announcement w-as made by the Minister of National Defence and the Minister of Transport, outlining the findings of the interdepartmental committee and stating the government had adopted the recommendations of the committee.

Questions



PORT OP HALIFAX

Mr. Balcom:: 1.	How many vessels arrived at the port of Halifax during each of the years 1946, 1947, 1948, 1949, 1950?
2.	How many vessels sailed from the port of Halifax during each of the years 1946, 1947, 1948, 1949, 1950?
3.	What amount of grain was handled at the port of Halifax during each of the years 1946, 1947, 1948, 1949, 1950?
4.	What amount of lumber was shipped through the port of Halifax during each of the years 1946, 1947, 1948, 1949, 1950?


Mr. Benidickson:: In so far as the national harbours board is concerned:
1.	Year	Arrivals
number of ships
1946		 2,409
1947		 2,319
1948		 2,579
1949		   2,827
1950		 3,012
2.	Will these accompany the special force to Korea?
3.	How many qualified medical officers are there at the present time in the special force proceeding to Korea?
4.	How many of these are active R.C.A.M.C. officers?


Mr. Blanchette:: 1.	R.C.A.M.C. units in the special force consist of a field ambulance, two field surgical teams, a field transfusion team, a field dressing station, and a medical liaison detachment.
2.	A field ambulance, a field surgical team, and a field transfusion team will accompany the special force to Korea. The other units will complete organization and will only proceed upon the firm establishment of a definite need for them in Korea.
3.	Sixteen qualified medical officers.
4.	Fourteen of the sixteen medical officers are officers holding active force commissions in the R.C.A.M.C.



LEGATIONS


[Stage Direction]
2. Year	Departures
1946 .			number of ships 2,414
1947			2,319
1948 .			2,577
1949 .			2,788
1950 ,			3,027
Year	Receipts	Shipments	TotalBushels	Bushels	Bushels1946	6,368,152	6,849,256	13,217,4081947	7,329,657	7,183,720	14,513,3771948	8,614,307	7,475,750	16,090,0571949	9,987,343	9,380,906	19,368,2491950	5,009,257	6,530,185	11,539,442Lumber	(not including logs, pit	props orrailway ties).	Year	Inward	Outward	TotalTons	Tons	Tons1946	30	88,813	88,8431947	28	177,622	177,6501948	107	57,089	57,1961949	270	68,698	68,9681950	1,874	43,696	45,570


Mr. Pearkes:: 1. What R.C.A.M.C. units are part of, or have been assigned to the special force?


Mr. Balcer:: 1.	Is the Canadian government sending a naval officer to Stockholm, Sweden, as naval attache?
2.	If so, who is he?
3.	What is his rank and age?
4.	Is he a Canadian citizen by birth?
5.	If not, how long has he been living in Canada?
6.	Is he a member of the Royal Canadian Navy?
7.	If so, over what period of time?
8.	Has he ever visited the ten Canadian provinces?
9.	If so, when?


Mr. Blanchette:: 1.	Yes.
2.	E. C. St. John Green.
3.	Acting Commander. Age, 41 years.
4.	No. Born in London, England.
5.	Since August, 1930.
6.	Yes.
7.	Since September 5, 1940.
8.	To the knowledge of naval headquarters, he has visited all provinces east of Manitoba.
9.	Since September, 1940.



POSTAL SERVICE


Mr. Noseworthy:: 1.	What is the current postage rate on magazines?
2.	What is the difference in rate as between Canadian and American magazines?
3.	Does the Post Office Department estimate that it has a profit or a deficit on this branch of its business?
4.	What was the amount of that profit or deficit for the year ending March 31, 1950?


Mr. Langlois (Gaspe):: 

MOTIONS FOR PAPERS


Mr. Coldwell:: For a copy of all letters, telegrams, memoranda, or other documents between any minister, department, official, or the government of Canada and any minister, department, official, or His Majesty's government of the United Kingdom, relating to the final settlement of the four-year agreement, 1946, for the sale and purchase of Canadian wheat, including correspondence and other documents relating to the price agreed to be paid during the last two years of the agreement.
He said: May I ask the Prime Minister when permission for this tabling was asked, and if any reply has been received?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I would not like to say from memory on what day the permission was asked; but I inquired this morning about an answer and I was told that the high commissioner had been communicated with again last night, that he had not yet received instructions but that I would be informed just as soon as he receives instructions.


Major James William Coldwell: Which commissioner was
that? Was that our high commissioner in London?


Mr. Si. Laurent:: No, the high commissioner at Earnscliffe. It was through him that the application was made.
Motions for Papers


Mr. Speaker:: Stand.



FEDERAL AID TO EDUCATION

Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: For a copy of all correspondence exchanged between the government of Saskatchewan or any minister or department thereof and the federal government or any minister or department thereof in reference to the question of federal aid to education, dated at any time since January 1, 1947.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Subject to the usual
condition that the acquiescence of the government concerned will be sought.


Mr. Speaker:: Carried, subject to the
remarks of the Prime Minister.



NATIONAL COUNCIL ON PHYSICAL FITNESS

Mr. Noseworthy:: For (1) a copy of any suggested amendments to the National Physical Fitness Act submitted by the national council on physical fitness, since 1943, to the Department of National Health and Welfare; (2) a copy of any recommendations made, since 1943, by the national council on physical fitness to the Department of National Health and Welfare in regard to expenditure of funds for carrying out the purpose of the act; (3) a copy of all correspondence, legal or otherwise, exchanged since 1943, between the national council on physical fitness and the Prime Minister and/or the Minister of National Health and Welfare regarding the status of the council as an executive body.


Jean-Paul Stephen St-Laurent: I would ask that this
motion stand, in view of the fact that it concerns the Department of National Health and Welfare and that both the minister and the parliamentary assistant are away today on other official business.


Mr. Speaker:: Stand.



MIGRATORY BIRDS CONVENTION ACT


Mr. G. F. Higgins (Si. John's Easl) moved:: That, in the opinion of this house, appropriate steps should be taken to seek an amendment on behalf of Canada to the migratory birds convention, and to amend the Migratory Birds Convention Act, so as to eliminate the prohibition, in so far as it prohibits the people of the province of Newfoundland killing, capturing or taking turrs, which are a species of murres, hown, sea-duck, ticklace, steam, which are a species of tern, shellbirds and divers, which are a species of duck, and thus place the province of Newfoundland in the same position as before the passing of the act to confirm and give effect to terms of union between Canada and Newfoundland, 1949.
He said: Mr. Speaker, there is an old saying that every dog has his day. I suppose one

Migratory Birds Convention Act therefore can say that every bird has its day.
I trust that today will be recognized as turr day in this house. To mark that day I have taken the liberty of having distributed to hon. members copies of a recent book on Newfoundland issued by the tourist development office. I believe all hon. members have received a copy of this little booklet. I might say that the booklet was compiled by Mr. Ewart Young, publisher of the Atlantic Guardian, of Montreal, in collaboration with Miss Margaret F. Godden, of the Newfoundland tourist development office. I believe those hon. members who have read it-or rather, who have looked at it, because it is chiefly made up of pictures-will recognize real merit when they see it.
In submitting this resolution I wish hon. members to know that this is a serious matter indeed and one of the greatest importance to the province of Newfoundland. Some hon. members have been joking with me about it. To hon. members who have been doing so, and whose only interest in birds apparently is in those that fly on one wing, I may say that I have no interest in such birds, at least at the present time. But to hon. members who are interested in and inclined to discuss the propensities of these peculiar one-winged birds, I may say that I am prepared, after the Easter recess, in my office or in any other suitable place they may choose, to discuss the matter in full measure with them. But until that time I have declared a closed season on discussing such peculiar birds.
This resolution, I say, deals with a serious matter. In order that hon. members may understand the problem, I will attempt to explain it to them. The legislation dealing with the subject is the Migratory Birds Convention Act of 1917, which appears as chapter 130 of the revised statutes of 1927. The original act was passed to ratify a convention made between Canada and the United States on August 16, 1916. The United States ratified the convention in 1918. By article IX of the convention it is provided that the convention shall take effect when ratified by both countries. Upon ratification the convention was to remain in effect for fifteen years from the date of ratification; and if neither party to the convention gave notice within twelve months of its intention to terminate the operation of the convention, it was to continue to remain in force for one year, and so on from year to year.
The original period of fifteen years expired in 1933 without notice of termination having been given by either party. Consequently the present position is that the convention remains in force from year to year until,

I presume, twelve-months' notice is given by either party of the desire to terminate it. By the convention certain birds described therein are enumerated under three categories: migratory game birds, migratory insectivorous birds, and other migratory non-game birds. The seasons in which such birds can be hunted are detailed. These details are set forth at pages 2768 and 2769 of volume III of the Revised Statutes of Canada, 1927.
In order that hon. members may be able to understand the description of these birds, as stated in the convention, as compared with the birds named in the resolution, may I say that the description in the resolution is the form in which we know them in Newfoundland. Hown is known by the wildlife division of the Department of Resources and Development as old-squaw duck. Sea-duck is known as eider duck; divers as scoter duck and shell-birds as merganser duck.
These four forms of duck are described in subparagraph (a) of paragraph 1 of article 1 of the convention under the generic term name of wild duck, and are stated to be in the category of migratory game birds. The remaining three varieties of sea birds named in this resolution, namely, turrs, ticklaces and steams, are described in the case of turrs as murres, steams as terns and ticklaces as kitti-wake gulls. These names are the same as the names in the convention, with the exception of ticklace, which is described as a gull, and which is known to the wildlife division as the kittiwake gull. These are classed, as migratory non-game birds, and there is no open season for them at any time in the territories of the United States or of Canada.
Of these three varieties, by far the most important to the people of Newfoundland is the turr, and it is chiefly in connection with the permission to take and kill for food this bird that I am asking the consideration of the house today. It is not the purpose of the resolution to give the right to sell with respect to the other birds which I have mentioned, and which are included in the resolution namely, hown, sea-duck, diver and shell-bird. Certain seasons are proclaimed yearly in which they may be taken. This year the seasons have been set forth, and, Mr. Speaker, with the consent of the house I should like to put the table on Hansard rather than read it, as it is fairly extensive.


Mr. Speaker:: Has the hon. member the consent of the house that the table appear in Hansardl


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Agreed.


Gordon Francis Higgins: The table follows:	.
Local
Newfoundland
name
Hown	
Sea-duck ....
Divers	
Shellbirds ...
Turrs	
Ticklace ....
Stearn	

Migratory Birds Convention Act Open season at present
Ordinary	Avalon and	Remaindername	Burin	ofelsewhere	peninsulas	Newfoundland	LabradorOld-squaw duck .. Dec. 5-Feb.	28	.	Dec. 5-Feb.	28	.	Oct.	2-Dec.	26Eider duck	Dec. 5-Feb.	28	.	Dec. 5-Feb.	28	.	Oct.	2-Dec.	26Scoter duck	Dec. 5-Feb.	28	.	Dec. 5-Feb.	28	.	Oct.	2-Dec.	26
Merganser duck .. Oct. 2-Nov 1 .. Sept 15-Nov. 8 . Sept. 7-Oct. 31
Murres	 \ These birds are classified as migratory non-
Kittiwake gull	>
Same birds and there is no open season for
( them at any time in territories of the United Terns	 1 States and Canada.
All these birds feed on fish, which means that as soon as ice comes to the northern coast of Newfoundland the birds move away from that coast in great numbers; consequently the seasons in which they may be hunted are not of great value to the residents of the northern shores of the province. Moreover, there are not anything like the numbers of these birds as there are turrs; and I am told by those who know that they are not regarded in the same class as food.
Prior to the union of Newfoundland with Canada, Newfoundland had no such restriction against shooting and taking these birds as that which exists at the present time by reason of the convention and the act, as Newfoundland was not a party to the convention, being a separate country at the time of the enactment.
So far as I know the matter was never discussed by either of the two delegations that came to Canada from Newfoundland in 1947 and 1948, prior to the settlement of the terms of union. However, I have been told quite recently by Dr. Harrison F. Lewis, the chief of the wildlife division of the Department of Resources and Development, with whom I have been able to discuss this matter through the kindness of the Minister of Resources and Development (Mr. Winters)- and I may say, I found Dr. Lewis very helpful and very courteous indeed-that a Newfoundland representative, Captain Harry Walters, chief game warden of Newfoundland, had been in attendance at the conference between representatives of the United States and Canada in June of 1948, but that the matter had not been discussed at that time because it was of no interest to Newfoundland, that country not being a part of Canada at the time.
The'first time the matter appears to have been discussed by this joint conference of the United States and Canada was in June, 1949; union became effective in April of that
year. And here I quote from Dr. Lewis' conversation with me, as I had it recorded with his consent:
At the June, 1949, meeting the problem was raised and the general application of the act to Newfoundland was discussed at considerable length. A resolution was adopted by the conference, urging the federal authorities to exercise patience and leniency in introducing this new legislation to Newfoundland. Everyone was in great sympathy with the peculiar situation in Newfoundland.
That resolution reads as follows, Mr. Speaker. I am not going to read it all, but I would ask that it be placed on Hansard, if there is no objection.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it acceptable to the house?


Some hon. Members:: Read it.


Mr. Speaker:: If the hon. member would like it to appear in Hansard he will be required to read it, because there is not unanimous consent to his placing it on Hansard without reading it.


Gordon Francis Higgins: It reads as follows:
Whereas a considerable portion of the population of Newfoundland has for generations been compelled by economic necessity to rely largely upon certain species of sea birds, described as migratory non-game birds in the migratory birds treaty, for their subsistence during certain seasons of the year;
And whereas immediate strict application of the migratory birds regulations, as they apply to other provinces, within Newfoundland would cause serious hardship to the above residents of that province;
Therefore be it resolved that this conference recommends that in extending the provisions of the Migratory Birds Convention Act and regulations to Newfoundland, sympathetic consideration be given to the situation of the Newfoundland residents above mentioned; and that, within the obligations imposed by the migratory birds treaty, the greatest possible patience and leniency should be exercised in enforcing the regulations in that province during the period considered necessary for adjustment.
There is a note that it was carried unanimously. I do not want to put anything on Hansard that is objectionable. I was merely trying to save some time here.


Mr. Speaker:: * May I suggest to the hon. member I do not think the objection was

Migratory Birds Convention Act to what the hon. member was proposing to put on Hansard. I understand a number of members in the house wanted to know the contents of the resolution at this time.


Mr. Gauthier (Portneuf):: That is right.


Gordon Francis Higgins: Dr. Lewis then continued his conversation with me by saying:
In August, 1949, I went to St. John's and set up our district office, and interviewed the premier, the Hon. J. R. Smallwood, and the minister of natural resources, the Hon. Mr. Bussell, and discussed this problem with them. All with whom I spoke recognized the problem which existed.
Dr. Lewis then informed me that as a result of his visit to St. John's in August, 1949, Mr. Leslie M. Tuck was appointed by the civil service commission as dominion wildlife officer for Newfoundland. He started work on October 1, 1949. Dr. Lewis continued his conversation with me by saying:
We had Mr. Tuck issue an authorized statement on behalf of the department on November 8, 1949.
And here, Mr. Speaker, if hon. members would consent to my reading the most important parts of the statement and putting the remainder of it on Hansard, 1 would appreciate it.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Agreed.


Gordon Francis Higgins: This statement is dated
November 8, 1949, signed by Leslie M. Tuck, dominion wildlife officer, Newfoundland, and reads as follows:
Following the union of Newfoundland and Canada, the migratory birds treaty, which was adopted by Canada and the United States more than thirty years ago, came into effect in this province. This outstanding conservation treaty was approved by the governments of the individual provinces, as well as by the dominion government, and the application of its provisions is a matter of close dominion-provincial understanding. The original concept was to provide similar and adequate conservation of valuable migratory birds throughout North America, as the best means of protecting birds that annually migrate across international boundaries. It is widely accepted as the greatest single act of wildlife conservation ever inaugurated, and is implemented throughout Canada by the Migratory Birds Convention Act.
This legislation recognizes that the protection of migratory birds is an international question, as well as a local one. It is only by international agreement under federal auspices that we can be assured that protection equivalent to that extended in one country will be given migrant birds by other countries that they annually visit. Under this agreement, certain sea birds, and all the shorebirds except two species, are absolutely protected throughout the year in all parts of Canada^ and the United States. The shooting season for migratory game birds is definitely limited in each locality, and all spring shooting is prohibited. A secondary effect, but one of the greatest importance to the species

concerned, has been the stopping of the sale of migrant game birds throughout the United States and the provinces of Canada.
The open seasons for ducks, geese and Wilson's snipe are set each year by agreement between the dominion and provincial authorities after full discussion of the conditions relating to the subject. In Newfoundland this year the open seasons for these birds began on various dates, but all terminated on October 31, except that the open season for the various kinds of eider ducks and scoter ducks will continue, throughout the coastal waters of the province, until November 30.
It is recognized that many people around the coasts of Newfoundland are accustomed to depend on the meat of the murre, or turr, as it is locally called, for food, and have made no substitute provision for the winter. Hardship might be experienced by these families if those birds could not be obtained. While the migratory birds treaty does not provide an open season for the turr, since it is not one of the game birds, the authorities do not for the present propose to interfere with residents of Newfoundland who, because of need, take and possess turrs for their own use and that of their families. This does not, however, apply to bull-birds, ticklaces, noddies or bawks, which the treaty protects throughout the year.
The sale of wild birds, because of the unnecessary and excessive destruction to which it leads, has become widely outlawed. Consequently, the sale of migratory birds is generally prohibited in the island of Newfoundland and its adjacent islands, as in other provinces and in the United States. However, as a special concession scoter and eider ducks may be sold in Newfoundland during the open season for these birds, which is from October 1 to November 30 in the Avalon peninsula and September 15 to November 30 in the remainder of the island.
There are two species of eider ducks in Newfoundland during the above mentioned season. The male of the common eider duck is a distinctive bird with a black belly, a white back and a black crown. The female is brown, as are the females of both eiders and scoters. The other species of eider is the king eider, or king bird, as it is called in some localities. The male of this species has its foreparts white and its hind1 parts black. On the water it looks something like a saddle-back gull. A further means of identification of the king eider is the large orange shield on its forehead. Its female is a brown duck similar to the female of the common eider.
There are three scoter ducks found in these waters. The scoters are the large, chunky, blackish ducks, commonly seen flying low over the waves. The white-winged scoter, sometimes called the white-winged diver, is the largest of the three, and is easily identified by its white wing patch. The surf scoter (bottle-nosed diver or skunk head) is all black except for one or two white patches on its head. The American scoter (black-winged diver) is the only duck with entirely black plumage. This and the bright orange base of the bill are good identification marks.


Mr. Maybank:: Would the hon. member
permit an interruption? Would he allow me to have Dr. Lewis' letter, to which he has just referred, and if he has finished with it?


Gordon Francis Higgins: It is a conversation I had
with Dr. Lewis, at which time the doctor told me I could quote him in this connection. I had it taken down at the time.


Ralph Maybank: I am not objecting at all. I only wished to know if the hon. member would permit me to read it now, if he has finished using it. I am not raising any objection.


Gordon Francis Higgins: Yes, certainly.


An hon. Member:: You will soon have a chance to speak.


Gordon Francis Higgins: I hope, Mr. Speaker, that
you will not take time off from the time allotted to me while the parliamentary assistant is reading it.


Robert Henry Winters: There is lots of time; go on.


Gordon Francis Higgins: Then Dr. Lewis continued:
Early discussions indicated that murres were the principal birds concerned. We took the responsibility in connection with allowing the lenience referred to in the news release.
Then quoting further from the conversation with Dr. Lewis:
At the time this resolution was spoken of, in June, 1949, there were senior United States officers of the particular department concerned under the treaty present at the meeting, so they were aware of what we proposed to do and of the need for it. I presume that, if United States consuls and other departmental officials do their duty, the authorities in Washington are informed of any such action. They have not said anything, so they apparently recognize the need of patience and lenience and have not felt like protesting against the steps taken so far although they could have done so.
And he continued further:
The present arrangement was only on a temporary basis. It was obviously necessary to advance somewhat the following year. The first year this applied to all parts of Newfoundland.
At this point Dr. Lewis was referring to the fact that for the first year of confederation there was no restriction against the shooting and taking of turrs at all. Dr. Lewis then said:
Last fall-
He was referring to the fall of 1950-
-the matter was discussed again with the provincial authorities of Newfoundland. Our officer, Mr. Tuck, discussed it in St. John's with officials of the department. They considered what should be the next step in tightening up the terms of the treaty, recognizing that it would involve discomfort.
At this conference last fall, after some discussions and correspondence, it was finally decided to remove that special statement of lenience.
That is the statement referred to in the news release of November 8,	1949. He
continues:
It was felt that the best place to remove the privileges which had been allowed was in the southern part of the province for several reasons: it contains all the larger communities, St. John's, Corner Brook and some others which might be classed that way: also it has, in general, open harbours; is not blocked by ice; other food was available, migratory birds could be obtained; there was year-round steamship service, and the fishing
Migratory Birds Convention Act
crews cruise in open waters. It was decided, therefore, that this was the best place to start putting the terms of the treaty in force. Accordingly in the region from Grate's Point around by the south to Cape St. Gregory, absolute prohibition against the shooting and taking of turrs was put into effect.
This area includes a great part of the riding of the hon. member for Trinity-Conception (Mr. Stick).


Mr. Slick;: No, it does not-not the greater part.


Gordon Francis Higgins: I said "a great part"; all of
my own riding, all of the riding of the hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Browne), all of the riding of the hon. member for Burin-Burgeo (Mr. Carter), and part of the riding of the hon. member for Humber-St. George's (Mr. Kent). The only areas left out, and concerning which there is no prohibition at the present time, are the ridings of the Secretary of State (Mr. Bradley) and the hon. member for Grand Falls-White Bay (Mr. Ashbourne).
Recently the residents of Port aux Basques and Channel, two small towns in the constituency of Burin-Burgeo, sent in a petition to the premier of Newfoundland which contained 578 signatures, and stating that, except for inclement weather, another 700 names would have been obtained. I might add that since this resolution has appeared on the order paper I have received about 6,000 names by letter and telegrams from various parts of the island. The hon. member for Burin-Burgeo informs me he has the equivalent of another 7,500 names. It will be realized therefore that there is great interest in this matter. The districts from which I have had letters include all the ridings represented in the House of Commons, and from all parts of those ridings, including Labrador itself.


An hon. Member:: Are they in support?


Gordon Francis Higgins: Oh yes, they are in support.
I would hope to have time to read brief extracts from some of those letters which show that they very definitely require that the restrictions be lifted.


An hon. Member:: Read them.


Gordon Francis Higgins: I shall not read them now,
because I wish to see if I have the time. This petition was sent to the premier of Newfoundland who said, replying in a letter to the petitioners:
I must explain that in this matter of shooting seabirds the government of Newfoundland has no more power or authority than the government of Korea.
He said that the matter comes entirely under the control of the dominion government at Ottawa. It was the premier's understanding, that Canada, the United States

Migratory Birds Convention Act and Mexico had made a treaty in connection with the shooting of these birds, and that no provincial government or state government in the United States has any authority whatsoever in the matter. I do not know how the premier got Mexico into the treaty business, because Mexico is not concerned, so far as the treaty is concerned. Then the premier added in his letter:
It is news to me that anything has been done in this matter in White bay, or in fact, in any part of Newfoundland.
He means, in other words, that it was news to him that the people of White bay were allowed to shoot birds in this present year. That is an extraordinary statement, to my mind, because if Dr. Harrison Lewis is correct-and I have every reason to believe he is-then the premier was fully aware of what had been done, and was fully aware of the fact that in one-half the island prohibition is strictly enforced while in the other half it does not apply at the present time. He should have been aware of it, anyway- whether he was or not. Whatever knowledge he had or did not have, his departmental officials certainly had it.
I would add in that connection that whatever knowledge the departmental officials of the Newfoundland government had prior to confederation of the fact that Newfoundlanders would not be allowed to shoot these sea birds, as they had had a right to do for four hundred years, it was not known to the people of Newfoundland prior to the referendum which dealt with confederation with Canada. I venture to say that if that fact had been known, not only is it my opinion but it is the considered opinion of many people including-and I do not think I am taking chances when I say this-the hon. member for Burin-Burgeo who is now in his seat, that confederation would not have had the majority it did have. In fact, we would not be here today if the people were not allowed to shoot turrs-and hon. members from Newfoundland know it. As I say, I have received letters from all over Newfoundland in this connection, but to further buttress my argument on this point I should like to quote from a resolution which I am told was adopted unanimously at the national convention of the Young Liberal Federation of Canada meeting in Montreal on October 12, 13 and 14, 1949. This reads:
Whereas there are many people in Newfoundland particularly in the north and south areas depending entirely for their supply of fresh meat on the numerous sea birds which frequent our shores, and whereas at present the federal laws have forbidden the shooting of these birds, be it resolved that the

federal authorities take immediate steps to amend the present act to allow the people to take these birds for local consumption.
That should have some effect upon the minister. I may say that I have been informed in conversation with the hon. member for Burin-Burgeo (Mr. Carter) that following the special session last year he made a tour of his riding last fall, during which he received numerous written representations asking that the restrictions be removed. He received many petitions asking for the removal of the present restrictions. I understand from the hon. member that it is his contention that the turrs or murres which are hunted in his riding are the species known as the Brunnich's murres, as distinct from the Atlantic murres. The murres breed in Greenland during the summer months and migrate to the waters off the south and north coasts of Newfoundland during the winter months from November to March inclusive. It is the hon. member's belief that there is no proof whatever that this species ever migrates as far south as the coastal waters of the United States. The species which migrates south, the hon. member tells me, is the Atlantic species. It is said that less than one per cent of that species approach the international boundary between Canada and the United States and very few, if any, cross it.
From my discussion with the hon. member I understand that it is his belief that Newfoundlanders have been shooting these birds ever since the days of the first settlers. They have come to rely upon them as a source of food supply, particularly in the winter months when other foods are impossible to obtain, because of the lack of roads and other means of communication. As a result of lack of communication in winter these people cannot visit the larger supply firms and they must obtain their food from every possible source at hand.
The hon. member tells me that in most of his riding it is impossible to purchase fresh fruit or garden produce at any time, and this is especially so in the winter months. The little that is grown locally in his riding in the gardens is consumed long before December. Therefore the food available during the winter is deficient in vitamins and for this reason it is submitted that these birds should be allowed to be taken for food, not only to offset deficiency in vitamins but to provide a welcome variation in the staple diet of salt meat and salt fish.
The hon. member tells me that besides providing food these birds provide bait for codfish. During the winter it is too risky

for the fishermen to leave their herring nets out overnight, the herring being used as bait, and the entrails of these birds provide a very-efficient substitute. Many of the fishermen in the hon. member's riding are able to keep their boats in operation all winter as they can launch them quite easily and as a result many quintals of fish are caught with this kind of bait. Consequently the prohibition against the killing of these birds works a double hardship on a great many residents in his riding, first, by depriving them of essential food supplies and, second, by depriving them of the opportunity of obtaining bait and thereby reducing their production and their income.
As hon. members are aware, we are faced with a great problem in Newfoundland because of the incidence of tuberculosis. I have been the president of the Newfoundland Tuberculosis Association since its inception in 1945 and I am fairly familiar with the fact. My belief is that proper diet is of the greatest importance in the prevention of tuberculosis. That is not only my opinion; it has the endorsation of that well known authority, Dr. G. J. Wherrett, secretary of the Canadian Tuberculosis Association. He has given me his permission to quote him as saying that "fresh foods and vitamins are necessary for a proper diet, and proper diet has a definite relationship to the incidence of tuberculosis."
As proof of the gravity of the tuberculosis problem in Newfoundland I might point out that the death rate is 82 per 100,000 of population as compared with 30 per 100,000 in the rest of Canada, with a slightly lower figure in the United States. While this figure appears to be high, it is much lower than it was before our economic conditions improved during the last war as a result of the tremendous expenditures made by the United States in connection with the construction of bases as well as expenditures by Canada and Great Britain.
I also must give credit to our department of public health under the very able direction of Dr. L. A. Miller, assisted by Dr. J. M. McGrath, for this reduction. I feel justified in saying, moreover, that very valuable work has been done by the Newfoundland Tuberculosis Association as well, under the enthusiastic and capable leadership of our executive secretary, Mr. Walter Davis.
In line with the general contention that a proper diet is essential in waging the battle against the white plague, it is necessary that the people of Newfoundland be permitted to take these birds for food and not for sale. It is my understanding that the majority of turrs killed along the southern coast of Newfoundland are killed outside the three
Migratory Birds Convention Act mile territorial limit. I am told also that the birds closer in are in poor condition because they are partly covered with oil discharged from diesel operated vessels. Therefore they are not considered fit for eating when in that condition.
Under the present law it is permissible to kill these birds outside the three mile limit, but it is not permissible to bring them ashore. That means that if a man living on the south coast of Newfoundland wants to give his family a meal of these birds he must put the family in his boat, take them out past the three mile limit, kill the birds out there, cook the birds out there, and then wait for the food to digest. Technically speaking if they are brought in in the stomachs of his family he would be strictly guilty of a breach of the law.
Section 3 of article II of the convention permits Eskimos and Indians to take sea birds, which would include turrs. They are also permitted to take their eggs but they are not permitted to sell them. We have the ridiculous position of the Indian and Eskimo of Labrador being allowed to take these birds whereas the local Newfoundlander is not allowed to do so.


Mr. Cruickshank:: They are a little different.


Gordon Francis Higgins: That is right. The wildlife convention never interfered with the rights of these people who were here before the white man.
In Newfoundland, as distinct from Labrador, we have no native Indians and no Eskimos. The few Indians we have on the island are comparative newcomers from Nova Scotia. I might add that we have taken these birds for hundreds of years, in fact from the time John Cabot discovered the island, which was some twenty years before Jacques Cartier sailed up the St. Lawrence. St. John's was a settled city when the Indians were still occupying New York. Have we no rights at all? Are these rights that existed from 1497 to April 1, 1949, to be completely disregarded? And for what purpose; so these birds may continue to multiply while people go hungry? The birds are not regarded as a source of food in any other part of Canada. I ask any member from the mari-times or any other part of Canada if he has ever eaten one of these birds, if any member of his family has eaten one, or if he ever had a friend who ate one.


An hon. Member:: I have. We called them murres.


Gordon Francis Higgins: You have? You have eaten them?


An hon. Member:: Yes, sir.
1246

Migratory Birds Convention Act


Gordon Francis Higgins: When did you eat them?


Mr. Knowles:: He is one of those Indians from Nova Scotia.


Gordon Francis Higgins: I shall take up this controversy with my hon. friend later. These birds have no value for plumage; their only value is for food, yet Dr. Lewis tells me the main purpose of the treaty is the preservation of the species. He informed me: "The terms of the treaty will apply no matter how numerous the birds may become." Further Dr. Lewis informed me that during the past thirty years hunting has not decreased the number of birds in Newfoundland and he had no knowledge of the position previous to that. His contention is that the reason the birds have not decreased in number is that the people of United States and Canada have not been shooting them. To me that is just shooting a lot of bull, but there it is. I ask how many members from the maritimes have shot and eaten any of these birds in their lifetime. Some hon. members outside the chamber have asked me why I am making such a fuss about this, why we do not just go ahead and shoot them anyhow. The answer, so that hon. members may understand, is that outside St. John's the policing of the island is done by that splendid force, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police; and under the provisions of this act they are ex officio game officers. Even if they disregarded their oath, which is unlikely, under section 8 of this act they would be liable to a fine of up to $500 or to six months' imprisonment "for conniving at breaking the law" if they did close their eyes to it. Anyone breaking the law by shooting such birds is liable to a penalty of up to $300 or six months' imprisonment or both fine and imprisonment, while subsection 2 of section 12 provides that a prosecutor who is not a game officer shall be entitled to one-half the penalty imposed. There are always informers, so there is no possibility that you could get away with shooting these birds without having someone tell on you. Certainly the mounted police are not going to take chances like that.
Another argument advanced by Dr. Lewis was that while it was difficult for people to change their habits, Newfoundland was in the position where it was necessary. My answer to that is in the words of Samuel Johnson, who said, "The chains of habit are too weak to be felt until they are too strong to be broken". The chains of Newfoundland's habits in this respect have been forged over a period of four and a half centuries.
The minister's idea is to have the dominion wildlife officer for Newfoundland co-operate with the agricultural authorities to develop the production of meat for local consumption

in and near the more remote localities of the province. To this my answer is that the theory is excellent, but I challenge him to carry it out. Cows or any other edible beasts cannot feed on rocks, and along many parts of the coastline of Newfoundland that is all there is. Moreover I understand the minister's attitude is that while he would like the convention amended for the purpose of permitting Newfoundlanders to take these birds for their own consumption, he is unable to do so because of the necessity of securing United States consent. My reply is that when the United States wished to establish bases in Newfoundland we did not ask any payment; and it is well to remember that the bases in Newfoundland were no part of the destroyers-for-bases deal. We gave up sovereignty over those portions of our country at that time freely, without any consideration whatsoever, and I think it would be a very small quid pro quo now to ask the United States government to give Newfoundlanders the right to shoot these turrs in seasons, which will be limited under the game regulations. When the bases were set up in Newfoundland we had to go through a great deal of disturbance. Our people were moved out of localities where they and their parents before them had made their homes. Their family lives were disrupted, their homes were torn down, and all the sentimental attachments that go with a home were destroyed forever in many cases. So we feel we are asking very little and that this would be very small compensation indeed for what we have had to put up with. There is no suggestion on my part of any ill will toward the Americans. We are very happy to have them there. They have brought a lot of good money and a lot of good will with them, and the relationships are pleasant indeed. But certainly there is no reason why we should not ask this small concession on their part.
I believe I have a few minutes left, and I should like to back up my contentions by reading one or two short extracts from letters which are really very much in point, in order to show that I am not just talking for love of hearing my own voice. The first is a letter from Mr. K. M. Brown of King's Cove, in the riding of the Secretary of State (Mr. Bradley), and indeed a great friend of the minister. Mr. Brown was a member of the old parliament of Newfoundland; he was a member of the national convention, and but for an unfortunate cerebral hemorrhage he probably would be in this house today representing one of the federal ridings. This is what he says:
To those of us who are so well acquainted with the living conditions of Newfoundlanders it is


Mr. Blackmore:: Will the hon. member permit a question?


Gordon Francis Higgins: Yes.


John Horne Blackmore: The hon. member has mentioned that these birds were migrating. Could he give us any idea as to where they would be migrating if they were not going to the United States?


Gordon Francis Higgins: As I understand it the migration to which reference is made is from. Greenland to Newfoundland. I believe the hon. member for Burin-Burgeo (Mr. Carter) will speak in this debate, and he will probably be able to explain it more fully than I can. The migration is only from Greenland to Newfoundland and I understand the birds do not go away from Newfoundland except to go back to Greenland.
I understand that my time is up, Mr. Speaker, but if I could have three or four minutes I would be able to finish.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the desire of the house to permit the hon. member to continue?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Gordon Francis Higgins: I could speak for hours on this matter, but I believe my remarks can best be summed up by a Newfoundland ballad entitled "The Shooting of the Bawks", which was written by Mr. A. R. Scammell, who is now engaged in the teaching profession in Montreal. At the time he wrote this ballad he lived at Pinchard's island in the riding of the Secretary of State (Mr. Bradley). He informed me that it was ardund 1938 when he wrote it, and at that time a restriction had been imposed against the shooting of sea birds. I understand he bases his ballad on the talk he heard amongst the fishermen in

Migratory Birds Convention Act the various settlements in that area. I have a record here and a recording machine, Mr. Speaker; am I permitted to use it at this point?


Mr. Speaker:: I would suggest to the hon. member that he may use the machine and the record in his office. I am sure hon. members would attend.


Gordon Francis Higgins: Very well, I shall do that. Any member who wants to hear it is welcome to come, and I shall play it for him. I shall quote a few verses.


Some hon. Members:: Sing it.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, does the hon. member propose to read a few verses?


Gordon Francis Higgins: Yes, Mr. Speaker, even though it is approaching St. Patrick's day I do not think my voice is in good enough condition to warrant imposing it on the members of the house. I shall read a couple of verses, and if hon. members will remember that the tune is the "Wearing of the Green", they may sing it for themselves at a later date. It reads as follows:
0	Mary dear and did you hear the news I heard
today?
We're only 'lowed to kill a bird up to the middle o' May.
Now isn't it a cruel shame, this thing that they have done!
And so says Tom, and so says Bill, and so says everyone.
1	met with Skipper Neddy, and he took me by
the hand,
And he said: "Now what's the news, my boy, and how's poor Newfoundland?
Says I, "Next summer, Neddy, we'll have to live on hawks,
For theres' a bloody law agin the killin' of the hawks."
But as I'm a law-abiding man, as you may understand,
I'll have to fire beach-rocks at the king-birds from the land.
They're tryin' to starve an honest man who has the nerve and pluck-
For there's a bloody law agin the killin' of the duck.
The ones who made this law can sit, eat chicken, drink port wine,
T3ut what about the poor old ghost who hauls a fishing line?
.He has to watch the bawks flock 'round, upon a foggy day
And- watch them rob his trawls of bait, and watch them fly away.
He's not allowed to shoot them or someone sure will squawk;
For there's a bloody law agin' the killin' of a bawk.
The last verse is the one I shall read now, Mr. Speaker.
But if they keep this law that's passed, they will not get a taste
Of hawk or noddy, tinker, turr, and not a ticklace.


So you who made this law prepare and send us all a meal
From time to time of good fresh beef, or mutton, pork and veal.
And don't forget, my bully boys, a chicken now an' then.
As yet there's neither law agin the killin' of a hen.


Mr. C. W. Carter (Burin-Burgeo):: Mr. Speaker, as this is my first address from the floor of this historic chamber, I should like my first words to be words of thanks to the people who sent me here. With your permission, sir, before proceeding to discuss the resolution before the house, 1 should like to express my heartfelt gratitude to my constituents for the confidence they have placed in me, and for the honour they have bestowed upon me in selecting me to represent them in this national parliament.
The subject matter of the resolution introduced by the member for St. John's East (Mr. Higgins) is one of great concern to all my constituents. I would be failing in my duty to them if I did not present their wishes here today. The numerous petitions and telegrams which I have received from all parts of my riding make it quite plain that my constituents want me to support this resolution. Although several species of sea birds are mentioned in this resolution, the importance of one species known scientifically as the murre, and locally as the turr, overshadows the importance of all the others. All the telegrams and petitions which I have received refer only to this one species, the turr. The economic value of this bird has already been pointed out by my friend the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. Higgins), as well as its importance as a factor in the health and nutrition of our people. To understand this it is necessary to know the isolated conditions under which so many of our people live.	[DOT]
In my own riding of Burin-Burgeo there are 260 settlements, of which only 33 have a population of over 300. Of those 260 settlements only about 45 are connected by roads, and 73 are connected by the Canadian National Railway coastal service. This leaves about 150 settlements without any organized system of communications whatever, either with each other or with the outside world. The only way to get from one place to another is by means of small fishing boats. In stormy weather, especially in the winter months, these settlements are completely isolated for weeks at a time.
Few communities have sufficient land for gardens or for the raising of livestock. Consequently only a tiny fraction of the food supply can be produced in the community. The nearest store is usually located in one of the larger settlements several miles away.

Because of this isolated condition which I have just described, the people are forced to supplement their food supply from natural sources. In this respect they are in much the same position as the woodsmen and the trappers. The only difference is that for our people nature provides a food supply in the form of sea birds instead of in the form of land birds and small animals. Our fishermen have been dependent upon this source of food from the time of the earliest settlers, and it came as rather a shock to them when they learned that confederation had deprived them of this right which they had exercised for so many years.
Their first reaction was that something had been put over on them; because it is logical to assume that the application of federal game laws would be taken up by the departments concerned when the terms of union were under discussion. Yet no mention was made of this restriction when the issue of confederation was placed before the people. Their second reaction was one of vexation and resentment at losing a right which they had enjoyed for so many years, and particularly one which affected their lives in so many ways. Resentment is always a bad thing in any form. It is a sort of cancer of the spirit which grows by feeding on itself. One of its effects is to prevent us from thinking about the question objectively.
As I understand it, my duty in this house is not only to make known the views of my people but to search for the truth and to present that truth as I see it both to my constituents and to this parliament; not only that, but also to point out the direction in which I believe the truth impels us to move. In this connection there are a few points to which I should like to direct attention. The first point is that there is available hltogether too little authentic information for us to be able to make a definite decision as to what is the right thing to do in this case.
The restriction that brought about this resolution arises out of an international treaty which affects other nations and other provinces. We do not know to what extent the numbers of these sea birds have increased during the time that the treaty has been in force. We do not know whether the rate of increase is sufficient to withstand the slaughter which might result if all the Atlantic provinces insisted on exercising their right to kill these bird's, as legally they would be able to do should the treaty be amended.
In the second place, there is some doubt in my mind at least as to whether these birds known as turrs or murres should properly be included in the terms of this international treaty at all. In my opinion, turrs are not
Migratory Birds Convention Act migratory birds. To my mind, a migratory bird is one whose natural habits, food supply and body temperature compel it to move from one country to another to seek climatic conditions essential to its natural existence and the propagation of its species. This definition certainly does not apply to the turr. Only a small percentage of these birds actually cross the international boundary, and I believe that those either drift southwards with the ocean currents or are blown southwards by the prevailing winds. These birds are not built for flying. They have relatively small wings and they can fly only a short distance at a time before coming down on the water. They are therefore different in this respect from other migratory birds. The fact that a few of them may drift or be blown across the international boundary does not, in my opinion, make them migratory birds.
Mr. Speaker, I should like to see this question settled on a basis of what is right; that sentiment applies not only to this question but to every question that comes before this house. In no other way can we effectively serve the interests of our people or of our nation. We can determine what is right only if we are guided by the moral principles involved. The first principle that comes to my mind is that democracy must concern itself with the needs of the people, or else it ceases to be democracy. The second principle is that we are our brother's keeper and we should care for each other enough to put the needs of others before our own. In this respect we must bear in mind the fact that our Indian and Eskimo brothers need these birds even worse than do our Newfoundland fishermen, because they have a total meat diet and they live on what they can catch and kill from day to day. For their sakes, therefore, these birds must not be permitted to become extinct. If that should happen, our Indians and Eskimos would suffer far greater hardship than anyone else; and for this very reason the birds must be protected. Whether total protection is necessary, however, is quite another matter. The number of birds killed by the Newfoundland fishermen is relatively small, as they do not appear in any numbers until from December to March; and at that time of the year the weather is so stormy that the fishermen can get out in their boats only about once or twice a week to kill them. Far more destruction is caused by foxes, which devour their eggs and kill the young, and also by crude oil pumped out by ships at sea, which destroys thousands of adult birds at a time. However, if some protective measures are necessary, our people will be the first to agree to a limitation of the shooting season,

Migratory Birds Convention Act and on the number of birds to be taken. But the overriding factor, as I see it, is that of human need. This principle is already recognized by the treaty, which grants exemption to the Indians and the Eskimos. I believe that this principle should be extended to our Newfoundland fishermen in those areas where a definite need exists, and to other provinces as well where the need can be established. I believe that if proposals are put forward to the countries and to the provinces concerned on this basis they will agree to an amendment.
It is because I view the resolution in this light that I give it my wholehearted support.


Mr. W. J. Browne (Si. John's West):: Mr. Speaker, first of all I should like to congratulate my colleague, the hon. member for St. John's East	(Mr.	Higgins),	on	thecomprehensive presentation of the case which he put forward here this afternoon; so much so, that he has left	little	for	anyone	whofollows him to say.	I should	like	to	congratulate him also on the strong and impassioned plea that he has put forward to the government and to the house to alter the law in relation to the birds to which we are referring. I believe	that	he	has,	by	the
extracts that he has given from representative people in Newfoundland, faithfully portrayed the feelings of a great majority of the residents around the coast of Newfoundland.
It is obvious to everyone that my colleague has gone to great pains to prepare this presentation, and I feel sure that the people concerned will be most grateful to him for the forceful manner in, which he has put their case forward.
I should also like to take this opportunity to congratulate the hon. member for Burin-Burgeo (Mr. Carter) on his maiden speech. If he approaches all the questions before this house in the same broadminded manner in which he has tackled this question, then he will deserve to receive the praise of all hon. members.
As a member, sir, of a riding which, outside the city of St. John's, has 300 miles of coastline where there are 20,000 people living in a hundred settlements, and living in houses the front doors of which face upon the ocean to show that the sea is their highway, I feel I must support my colleague from St. John's East in recommending to this house the adoption of this resolution. But I think a case should be put forward so that the proposal could be accepted on its merits, and not from any show of sympathetic consideration to the people in Newfoundland.


We are not looking for any special favours in this. I believe we have a case. While this subject is very important to thousands of people in Newfoundland, we must also recognize that there is a class of persons who have another regard for the birds, and who regard the question of preservation and conservation of birdlife as very important, too. I refer to the almost unknown group of men, naturalists and ornithologists, and here I should like to pay a tribute to that class of men who have taken, such a deep interest in the life of birds over the years, and to whom we all owe a great deal for their preservation. If we could only imagine what life on this planet would be without having birds we would realize what a debt we all owe to these men through the past centuries. Imagine spring without the robin or blackbird or thrush! Imagine summer without the swallow or the skylark, or early morning in the forests without the whistling of the birds! Imagine a ship at sea without the friendly following gulls! How much poorer the world would be without the beauty of the humming bird, the soaring eagle, or the song of the nightingale. The birds of the air play an important part in the Divine plan of creation.
To those lovers of birds, like the late Jack Miner, not only the people of Canada, but the people of the whole world, owe a great debt of gratitude, and it is surprising and even shocking to realize that just south of Jack Miner's sanctuary in southwestern Ontario at the time the birds take their flight to go south hundreds of people line up with shotguns, sportsmen, and shoot into the mass of birds darkening the sky. The naturalists and the ornithologists therefore, by their patience, by their perseverance, by their studies and their experiments, have accumulated a mass of valuable information of great benefit to mankind. They have succeeded in identifying the birds, noting their habits and portraying them even so that outside the places of their habitat we can see what they look like and learn all about them. There may be little doubt that those men have great influence on the government, and the government will act upon their advice. There is little doubt that it was largely due to their work that the birds to which we are referring today have not only not decreased in number, but have actually tended to increase in recent years. But, of course, it must be understood that even without the protection afforded these birds under the terms of the migratory birds convention it would not be possible to extinguish this class of birds. There is no danger of extinction of the turr as there was

of the great auk because they have greater mobility and there are far greater numbers of them. .
In the case of the great auk, Mr. Speaker, which became extinct nearly a hundred years ago in Newfoundland, its wings by constant use in the water had become a sort of flipper. The bird had become entirely aquatic, so that when it was being hunted it could not fly away, and therefore was shot in great numbers. In fact at times the fishermen used to put down planks from the land to the ship and drive the auks, which were very much like penguins, on board ship and take them away in that manner.
Nor is there serious danger of any great depletion in the flocks of those birds; and those who heard that letter which my colleague read this afternoon will agree that from testimony of a high character there seem to be millions upon millions of these birds. I know that on one island off Witless bay, which is a part of my riding, about 21 miles south of St. John's, there are many thousands of those birds. You can look at that island and you can see those birds lined up in ranks like troops, hundred of thousands of them. Every little ledge is covered with birds. Anyone who has seen them there would hardly think that they could be easily extinguished.
What I believe is a more serious cause of destruction of birds of that kind is the pollution of water by the oil-burning steamers.
It is the practice of many engineers on the steamers, after the tanks have been exhausted of oil, to fill them up with water; and when they are approaching port they discharge this water, so that they can refuel when they go into port. When they discharge the water large quantities of oil waste and sludge go into the sea; and since the oil is lighter than water it floats on top of the water and spreads out over great distances so that all the birds within the neighbourhood get coated with this oil. It permeates their plumage so that they cannot rise from the water, and they cannot dive for food. Therefore they become thin and die.
I believe that attempts have been made to control the deposit of oil on the surface of the water in this manner. And although many people have co-operated, there are still some who do not, and the oil from these steamers and the oil from wrecks along the coast escaping into the water kills thousands of birds every year.
The question comes to my mind as I suppose it comes to many hon. members; and my colleague dealt with it this afternoon: Why do naturalists work so hard to preserve and
14,	1951
Migratory Birds Convention Act propagate these species? It is hardly for the purpose of giving us pleasure. The answer which Dr. Harrison Lewis is supposed to have given my hon. friend and colleague is that it is done just to see them increase and multiply. It seems to me that is not a justification. It is not a sound reason.
These birds are like other game birds, such as partridge, plover, snipe or the brown duck, which have been created by God for the benefit of man. People who live in places where these birds congregate have the right to shoot them, in the appropriate season, just the same as sportsmen have the right to go out to shoot partridge, caribou or moose.
A wise exception was made in the convention referred to by the hon. member in respect of Eskimos and Indians, who have been accustomed to taking these birds and using the eggs as well, from time immemorial. It is appropriate to point out that at the conference which took place shortly after April 1, 1949, between the representatives of the provincial department of natural resources and the federal government officials, it was recognized as set out at page 29 of the report of the Department of Resources and Development for 1950 that "in the economy of Newfoundland migratory birds were of great importance".
As a result of that decision, for the first year the closed season was not extended to Newfoundland. This winter, however, for the first time, half of the island', beginning somewhere north of St. John's-about forty miles I believe

and extending down south along the south coast, and then north again as far as Cape St. Gregory on the west coast of Newfoundland, the southern half of the island was brought within the closed season, and fishermen along that stretch of coast are not allowed to shoot birds this year. Next year the remainder of the island will be covered by the closed season. After that the birds can multiply in their millions and laugh heartily at the fishermen.
It is this sudden change of policy which has caused surprise and consternation, and even bitterness among large numbers of people in Newfoundland. So general and so intense are the feelings of the people on this subject that it has been said by many supporters of the federal government, and supporters of confederation, that if the people had known they were not going to have the right to shoot these birds, confederation would have been defeated by a substantial majority.
Hon. members from other parts of the country, especially from inland parts, may find it hard to understand why there is so much commotion over this subject, and why people are so concerned about wild game. I

Migratory Birds Convention Act shall try to explain why. We have a coastline six thousand miles in length on which there are about twelve hundred settlements. During the winter months there is no communication at all with many of those settlements. People cannot get to the stores; no butcher comes around, and it is easy to see that in small villages, where there is very little arable land, it is impossible to raise sheep or cattle. Some people raise pigs and have what they call a barrel of pork put down for the winter. But often, they are not able to get young pigs in the spring, and the result is that they have not the pork to eat when the winter comes along. To a large extent they rely upon the supply of meat they can get from shooting birds.
People in those outports spend a great deal of time gathering firewood. Throughout the country, except in the larger centres, wood is burned. The people go into the forest and collect -the firewood-a year's supply. On suitable days they will go out to shoot turrs or duck. People in those isolated settlements are bound to take advantage of everything nature offers to keep the wolf from the door, and to live until their normal trade relations open in the spring.
It is easy to remind hon. members tnat the price of meat today is prohibitive, almost, to any ordinary workingman in a city such as Ottawa. I have heard working people in the United States as well as in Canada complain about the high prices they have to pay for fresh meat. In those isolated settlements which are so far away from the great centres of production, accordingly, the people in Newfoundland rely to a very large extent -much greater than the people in other parts of Canada-upon wild game such as rabbits, caribou, moose and wild birds.
Some may ask: Why do they -not raise poultry? I have asked myself that question. I have said, "Why do not the people have eggs and poultry?" It was pointed out to me that it is not practicable to have a poultry farm if there is no market nearby. One has to make an outlay for equipment to run the farm. He must pay for feed, which would have to be imported over long distances. Then, if there is no ready market nearby in which to sell poultry and eggs, one cannot dispose of any surplus. What are the people to do?
You will say to me, "Eat them." But there is no need for such a large quantity, with the result that they have become discouraged. They have seen large poultry farms in the vicinity of St. John's become failures, and there is very little encouragement for individuals in the isolated outports to follow that practice. I believe that through the


co-operative methods to which I have referred several times in the house, but which have not yet been practised sufficiently in Newfoundland, in time that difficulty will be overcome. In a large part of Newfoundland however individualism still rules and retards progress and development. The agitation therefore to procure the repeal of this regulation draws attention to a great problem still to be solved, namely that of enabling the people of Newfoundland to possess a sound year-round economy, outside the great industrial centres.
I can well recall my first introduction to the wild migratory non-game birds. Back in the spring of 1923 I was engaged in an election, and when we went into the village of Branch we were met with open arms-and I might add that the people who opposed us were met with open arms later. We were taken to a boarding house, and I remember well how clean and comfortable the place was. The piece de resistance was wild sea duck- and anyone who has not tasted wild sea duck or turr has a treat in store. Unless the government has this regulation rescinded, he may never have that privilege. I ask hon. members to consider the fair and reasonable proposition put forward by my hon. friend, namely that of granting to the industrious and hardy people who have worked so hard the same rights granted to Eskimos and Indians in connection with taking these birds for food.
The reason that privilege is given the Indians and Eskimos is not only that they have had it from time immemorial, but that it is a means of obtaining food. It is the natural method for them to do so. As my hon. friend from Burin-Burgeo (Mr. Carter) pointed out, the people who live along the seacoast where the birds congregate in great numbers should be granted the same rights. Such rights could be restricted to a certain period of the year-I do not think there would be any objection to that. I suggest that this would not seriously deplete the great stock of birds, and would assure to the people of Newfoundland the food necessary to help carry them over the long winter months.


Joseph William Noseworthy: Mr. Speaker, before the question is put I want to say that I support this resolution. I want to congratulate the mover, the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. Higgins), upon the able manner in which he has presented this resolution. As one who was born in an outport of Newfoundland and who as a youth had to depend to a large extent upon wild sea birds for fresh food, I can corroborate everything that has been said by the three hon. members

from Newfoundland with regard to the importance of these birds to the people of that province.
It is unfortunate that Newfoundlanders should have to rely to such a large extent upon these birds as a source of food. It is also unfortunate that the incidence of tuberculosis should be so high. If this debate has done one thing, I am sure that it has impressed upon every hon. member and the government the nature of the task which is before us in raising the standard of living in Newfoundland and providing its people with the opportunity to earn a livelihood and to reach a status where they will no longer be dependent upon such an uncertain source of food supply.
There are one or two things we should keep in mind in connection with the convention which is the subject of this debate. Until Newfoundland came into confederation the convention was not observed in that province as they were not a party to the convention. Newfoundlanders were free to take these birds as occasion arose. From all the evidence available this practice has had no effect upon depleting the birds.
The second fact to be kept in mind is that Newfoundland is probably the only part of any country which is a party to the convention where this matter is of such grave importance. The matter is not of significance to other parts of Canada or to the United States because these birds frequent the coast line and bays of Newfoundland.
Since there is no evidence that these birds are likely to become extinct even when taken for food, as they have been for centuries, there is no common-sense reason why this resolution should not be adopted and the Canadian government seek to make some arrangement with the other parties to the convention whereby Newfoundlanders may continue to exercise a privilege they have enjoyed for centuries.
I can see no sound reason why this particular species, which is of significance only to Newfoundland, should be protected to the point where there is no open season. Other wildlife of interest to people in all parts of Canada is protected, but the protection is limited in that there are open seasons. This particular species can serve no other purpose than to provide food, and therefore I strongly support the previous members in urging that this resolution pass.


John Horne Blackmore: Mr. Speaker, I should like to congratulate the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. Higgins) upon the admirable presentation of this resolution he has made to the house. The people
14, 1951	1253
Migratory Birds Convention Act of Newfoundland have reason to be proud of him and other hon. members who have participated in the debate. They have indicated that they have learned rather fast since reaching the house because their debating seems to be quite up to the standard which ordinarily prevails in the house.
The first thing we need to do in respect to this problem is what we should do in respect to all other problems which confront Canada. We live in a great country where varying conditions prevail. Problems which are of vital concern to one area may hardly have been heard of in other parts of the country. The result is a slight inclination on the part of many members to treat lightly the problems of areas remote from their own. We must teach each other with the utmost speed to refrain from any tendency to discount the seriousness of a problem facing another part of Canada with which we do not happen to be familiar. That is the only way in which we shall be able to make this country as mighty and as great as the Creator evidently intended it should be.
I listened with much interest to the discussion of this problem in respect of turrs. 1 must confess that three weeks ago I did not know that there were such things as turrs and at first I wondered whether they were really worth considering. The hon. member for St. John's East suggested that I give the matter more than passing thought, which I did, and I find that after all it is a serious problem and one worthy of consideration.
Therefore I do not hesitate to rise this afternoon for a few moments to express my ardent sympathy with the people of Newfoundland and to indicate my support in the attempt to solve this problem. In saying that, I think I can speak for the whole of the Social Credit group and the province of Alberta. We have plenty of problems of our own and therefore we can give the most sympathetic attention to this problem faced by our sister province. We shall be prepared to give equally sympathetic consideration to every problem that affects this [DOT] dominion from one coast to the other.
In respect of this problem of turrs, I am deeply interested in what we are going to do to find a solution. After what I have heard today and the study I have given the subject I am convinced that it is a problem which simply must be solved in the way Newfoundland wants it solved. They have a perfect right to have this concession obtained for them and granted to them, because from what has been said here the matter of turrs is evidently of vital importance to their health and economy. What we are going to do about it is the great question. It occurs to
1254	HOUSE OF
Migratory Birds Convention Act me, Mr. Speaker, that probably three lines of attack on this problem are open. From the experience I have had with him I am sure the minister does not need any suggestion from me that it will be necessary to attack this problem with the utmost energy and resourcefulness. I am sure that he is going to do that, and his department with him. Nevertheless I am assuring him that he has my support in so doing.
It seems to me we could probably establish that the turr is not properly classified as a migratory bird. We have a migratory birds convention. The evidence I have obtained thus far and the information adduced in this discussion indicate quite strongly that without too much in the way of mental gymnastics one could establish the fact that the turr is not a migratory bird in the sense in which that expression is used in the convention. I fancy that we would find considerable sympathy for this approach to the problem in the minds of enlightened and well informed people in the United States. If they did object to classifying this bird as non-migratory, then possibly we could prevail upon the United States to look at this matter from the angle that when Newfoundland entered confederation she was not aware that in doing so she would be depriving her people of the privilege of shooting turrs, and because of that fact special consideration ought to be given that province. When we bear in mind that for generations Newfoundland was a self-governing sister dominion in the British commonwealth, I think consideration ought to be given that approach and a special allowance made in the case of that province. This line of attack might be successful.
If the United States authorities were not prepared to grant the validity of those two arguments, however, it seems to me they should be prepared to grant concessions on the following ground. Here is a bird which enters vitally not only into the sporting life of Newfoundland as a migratory bird under the convention, but which enters into the very economy of the province. In the first place it constitutes an important food during considerable periods of the year over a wide area of Newfoundland; in the second place it is useful and necessary as bait for codfish.
If none of these three arguments taken separately should be sufficient, I would certainly think the three arguments taken together ought to constitute arguments that would carry sufficient weight with the United States authorities to cause them to grant us the privilege of making the exception in the case of Newfoundland, which obviously the situation requires.


With these three suggestions as to possible methods of approaching the matter I shall conclude, merely observing once more that Newfoundlanders can count on the Social Crediters of Alberta, anyway, being right behind them in all their efforts to obtain the rights they believe they should enjoy.


Mr. George A. Drew (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, in supporting what has been placed before this house so clearly and in such forceful terms by the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. Higgins) I wish to refer to some aspects of this discussion relating more to the legal phases of the problem than to the questions involved in consideration of the birdlife itself. While I cannot claim that direct association which has been put forward by the hon. member for York South (Mr. Noseworthy), at least I can claim with some pride to be one of those in this house with very direct family associations with Newfoundland.
The subject has been well placed before hon. members, and the importance of the birds mentioned in this resolution has been sufficiently emphasized so there is no necessity of repeating to hon. members the arguments in favour of consideration being given this resolution and an appropriate amendment of the act itself, which of course would involve discussion with the government of the United States. One point that has emerged from some of the correspondence that has been exchanged in regard to this subject is the suggestion that there are difficulties in the way of making exceptions in a particular case. I submit there is no practical difficulty in the way of appropriate amendments to the act following discussion with the proper authorities representing the United States government. The Migratory Birds Convention Act, which is chapter 130 of the revised statutes of Canada, 1927, makes it clear that there can be exceptions. It makes it clear that those exceptions need not be general, relating to the whole of Canada, but that they may be specific exceptions made in relation to a single province. That is shown by the various exceptions in the act itself, as well as in the appendices to the act. I would point out that in addition to the exceptions already mentioned by those who have spoken there is a group of exceptions starting with section 20 of the regulations which relate not to birdlife itself but which indicate that the provisions of this act be made to apply to different provinces of Canada in different ways. Section 20 reads:
In the province of Newfoundland, no person shall hunt, kill, or attempt to kill a migratory game bird by the use of an automatic firearm, including a firearm loaded by recoil or "auto-loading."

I submit, Mr. Speaker, that the very fact that there is a separate exception in regard to the firearms to be used in connection with the birds covered by this convention and the statute itself indicates that any provision of the act which is regarded as desirable and appropriate could be used, after steps have been taken which should be taken to produce that result. The sections immediately following this deal with exceptions in other provinces in Canada in connection with the use of firearms.
Then section 30 is an exception in relation to the birds themselves, and that is under the heading "Permits for Scientific Purposes." Section 30 provides that special permits may be given to kill, hunt, capture injure, take, molest, buy, sell, ship, transport or possess migratory birds or their eggs or nests for any scientific purpose. The section then goes on to explain how those permits shall be issued and to whom. I mentioned section 30 because the very fact that there can be an exception for scientific purposes demonstrates beyond all argument that there could equally be an exception for the purpose envisaged by this motion, namely the provision of necessary food to those parts of Newfoundland which have been accustomed to this particular food.
As I pointed out, the very fact that a number of exceptions are made to apply to particular provinces indicates that such a provision could relate to Newfoundland alone, or to any part of Newfoundland, without violating the general intent or purpose of this act. Following the act itself there are a series of schedules, and those schedules differ for each of the different provinces of Canada. Those schedules cover the open seasons for different kinds of birds, including some of the birds covered by this resolution. There again we see clearly demonstrated that there is an established practice for dealing with this subject in relation to the particular problem which each province presents.
There is also evidence contained in those schedules that the government has indicated its willingness to deal with the various aspects of this problem in relation to limited areas in separate provinces. The act itself makes it clear, therefore, that if the government is convinced that there should be an exception in the interests of the people of Newfoundland, there is nothing to prevent that exception being made.
In examining this subject, and considering what the United States would be likely to do if proper and sufficiently vigorous representations were made by the Canadian government concerning the subject, it is important to look at the convention under which both the Canadian and United States
14, 1951	1255
Migratory Birds Convention Act legislation was passed. The convention recited the reasons for the agreement reached by the governments of the United States and Canada to limit the shooting, trapping and other activities in connection with a number of migratory birds. The convention starts with the recital:
Whereas many species of birds in the course of their annual migrations traverse certain parts of the Dominion of Canada and the United States; and
Whereas many of those species are of great value as a source of food or in destroying insects which are injurious to forests and forage plants on the public domain, as well as agricultural crops, in both Canada and the United States, but are nevertheless in danger of extermination through lack of adequate protection during the nesting season, or while on their way to and from the breeding grounds; . . .
I have read the exact words of the convention to that point. The convention then goes on to recite that the governments of Canada and the United States have reached certain agreements, and	it is	under	thoseagreements that Canada then proceeded to adopt the	legislation at	that	time,	which
legislation has been amended from time to time since then.
In the paragraphs following the reference to the agreement between the governments, it states that these governments are, and I quote, "desirous of saving from indiscriminate slaughter and of ensuring the preservation of such migratory birds as are either useful to	man or are	harmless."	I aminformed,	Mr. Speaker,	that	there	is no
danger of the extermination of these particular birds now under discussion, particularly of the turrs, which it has been explained are the most important of the birds. After all, these birds have been shot or captured for a great many years, in fact for centuries, without any evidence of any danger of extermination. Certainly, if there were danger of extermination, then it would be necessary to modify one's views, and to advocate such measures of conservation as would preserve the species. It might then be necessary to limit the shooting or capture of these birds in an appropriate way, as is done in other cases.
I would point out that in the case of many birds, which are not migratory and which come under ordinary provincial legislation, the species survives under protective laws. Those laws do permit a certain amount of shooting or capturing, but do not permit a bag of a size that would lead to the extermination of the species. I have mentioned these points, Mr. Speaker, because it seems to me that the case that has been made in this connection suggests that there is no strong reason why this motion should not be supported. If the motion were adopted there is no reason why the government should not
80709-81i
1256	HOUSE OF
Migratory Birds Convention Act proceed to discuss with the government of the United States the terms of the agreement under which our own act could be amended to permit the people of Newfoundland to continue to use these birds for food, as they have over so many years in the past.
Might I point out that, while it is desirable that we should carry forward the conservation of bird life, we must also recognize long established practices which have to do with the dietary resources of any particular part of Canada. We should remember that there has not yet been an opportunity to extend those transportation facilities which may, over the years, make it unnecessary to continue any exception which might now be made. I should imagine that, as transportation facilities by road, by air, and by other means, are extended to the outports and to the most remote settlements of the province of Newfoundland, the need for this food would diminish. That, however, is to be dealt with at some future time. We are dealing now with what has been shown to be an urgent need of people who have become partners with us in the business of making this a united nation not only in name but in spirit as well. For that very reason I urge the government to avail themselves of the established practice of making exceptions, which has been demonstrated already by the act itself, and that they support this legislation and then proceed to discuss this subject with the government of the United States.


Ralph Maybank: Mr. Speaker, I made a few notes for the purpose of speaking on this subject; but before I even glance at them and discuss the subject from the point of view they indicate to me, I should like to deal with the argument the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew) has just made to the house. I believe that, on consideration, he will find that some of the statements he has made were not quite accurate. If he meant us to understand that it is not impossible to change this situation- if that was the intent-then of course there could be no disagreement because there is a way of getting away from this treaty. But if, on the other hand, he meant that under the treaty we could make the change in the law which is desired then I submit that he is not right; and I believe that on consideration he will agree that he is not right.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to interrupt-


Ralph Maybank: I have no objection.


George Alexander Drew: -but perhaps it would avoid unnecessary discussion if I were to do so.
I thought I had made it clear and I hope


the record will show that I did. I sought to emphasize the fact that the amendments that we should make would be amendments which could only follow discussion with the United States and consent to appropriate changes in the convention itself and their agreement with the amendments that we would make.


Ralph Maybank: The point really was this. The leader of the opposition indicated that the law shows that exceptions can be made. It is not the law that shows that exceptions can be made. That is a matter of treaty. The treaty makes it quite clear that exceptions, such as those the hon. gentleman mentioned, can be made. The treaty makes that clear. The treaty likewise makes it clear that with regard to these birds, which are called murres in the treaty and which are apparently called turrs locally, the prohibition of shooting or otherwise killing is absolute. So that actually to draw an inference from the Canadian law that a change can be effected is to draw a wrong inference. But of course no person will dispute the fact that it is always possible to open up discussions with a foreign country.
With respect to the whole question of the problem of the Newfoundlanders, there is no one but who must approach and view it with the greatest of sympathy. Here are people, we learn now, who have been using these birds for food for an exceedingly long time. It has been said even that this has been going on for four hundred years. By reason of confederation with Canada they find that there is first of all a danger that this food will be taken away from them. Later on one part of the island finds that indeed the opportunity of continuing to shoot these birds has been taken away from them. The other part of the island is facing the commencement of enforcement of the law there also. No person can help being sympathetic to the problem of the islanders, when he locks at a matter like that fairly in the face.
I have been aware of the difficulties for some little time. Before I became parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Resources and Development, various members from Newfoundland had come and talked the matter over with me, and had written to me at great length about it. They thought that I might have some knowledge of it dating from the time when I was in the department of mines and resources. I speak of them usually by name, not remembering their constituencies; but the hon. member for Trinity-Conception (Mr. Stick), the hon. member for Grand Falls-White Bay (Mr. MARCH 14, 1951
Ashbourne), the hon. member for Burin-Burgeo (Mr. Carter) and the hon. member for Humber-St. George's (Mr. Kent) all have written to me at great length, and have argued with me in the corridors and in my room. Whenever I met any of my colleagues from Newfoundland I thought it was almost certain that the subject of discussion would be turrs. I have had turrs, vicariously as it were, for breakfast, lunch and dinner nearly every day.
Then of course more recently the department has had representation from a number of places in Newfoundland. I have marked some of them down here. As my notes show it, petitions have come in from Grand Bank, Port die Grave, Hermitage, Sagona Island, Fortune Bay, Red Island, Placentia Bay, Little Paradise and a number of other places. There is no doubt about it that every person who has given any consideration at all to the matter has approached it in a most sympathetic way and that every person is desirous of finding some way of restoring to the Newfoundlanders the privilege they had had for so long or of working out something that will be a little bit less unpleasantly drastic than what we have had presented to us here today.
There is something about the treaty itself that might be kept in mind. I understand that we were engaged for a long time in the negotiations that led up to the signing of this treaty. A great many people in the United States and a great many people in Canada for many years were striving to get some treaty of this sort to protect birds that live sometimes on one side of the line and sometimes on the other. Eventually they succeeded. It was in 1916 that the treaty was signed. Sir Robert Borden was prime minister at that time, and I understand that he himself took a great interest in this treaty. That is what I have been told by some of the old-timers around here. There have not been any changes in the treaty since that time. There have not been any changes in the law except perhaps some few regulation changes in order better to carry out the obligations that we had under the treaty. I may say that at the time that Sir Robert Borden's government was able to effect this treaty it was received with acclaim in all parts of the house. Sir Wilfrid Laurier spoke at some length in favour of it at the time, and complimented the government of the day on its achievement. Bird lovers, sportsmen and many other types of people were greatly pleased at the time. There is, however, something that I think has been mentioned here this afternoon-and it will do no harm to repeat it-that should be kept in mind with reference to this treaty. It
Migratory Birds Convention Act appeals to me, at any rate. When this treaty was negotiated in 1916 it was for Canada as it then existed, and for the United States as it then existed. Neither of the contracting parties had in contemplation at all the island of Newfoundland, or any of the birds which swim or float around there. When one says that, the inclination develops in his mind that the United States might view with favour the proposal that Newfoundland should not be deprived of turrs, or the treaty should not apply, to some extent at any rate, to Newfoundland, since in the bargain they did not have Newfoundland in mind. There is the possibility of that.


An hon. Member:: Louder.


Ralph Maybank: I am sorry; I thought my
voice was carrying. However, I fancy you are not losing very much anyway. I do not rate it very highly, but we will go through with it anyway. I was saying that I had noted I thought it was of some interest and' even importance that when the treaty was negotiated neither the United States nor Canada expected to be getting any benefit with respect to the birds that fly or float around Newfoundland, and that any benefit the two contracting parties get by reason of Newfoundland and its bird life and the conservation of them is purely fortuitous. If I may use the language of another debate, the contracting parties at that time were not having regard to the birds of Newfoundland; and consequently one is inclined to think that if an attempt to open up the treaty were made there would be a strong argument in favour of getting some relief for Newfoundland by reason of the situation that I have been describing. There is of course the other argument that has been presented here today, the argument that man needs the food; and of course the treaty did take into account certain types of people who use these birds for their food, namely, the Eskimo and the Indian and, at any rate, brings home to us the fact that these treaties are not made for the benefit of birds, but for the benefit of man.
From the time that representations have been made to me, and for a considerable time before that, the idea of endeavouring to bring amelioration to the people of Newfoundland has been under consideration. As a matter of fact, I think if the drafter of this resolution had couched it in somewhat different words it might not have been objected to, or at any rate it might, quite frankly, have been accepted. This is just a personal view of my own. I do not know whether I am right. The resolution in effect says, get busy and amend that treaty; take proper steps to get the treaty amended. If it had indicated that

Migratory Birds Convention Act consideration should be given to this whole subject then I think the drafter of the resolution would have found that he was knocking on an open door.


Gordon Francis Higgins: May I ask the hon. gentleman a question? What exactly does he try to suggest by saying if the resolution had not been worded in the way it is worded, but had been worded in the way he says it should be?


Ralph Maybank: My own taste in draftsmanship and my own inclination would have impelled me to say that consideration should be given to this subject rather than it should be a definite direction to the government by a member of the opposition to go and do a certain thing. It is a definite direction-


Gordon Francis Higgins: May I ask another question?


Ralph Maybank: Just a minute until I finish
the sentence. I did not intend to be very emphatic about that. I certainly do not wish to try to teach some person how to draft something, because frankly I might be accused, like the boy, of trying to teach a grandmother to suck eggs. Probably the hon. gentleman knows a great deal more about drafting than I ever will, and he drafted it to suit his own taste; but it is a definite direction at any rate, and my own view is that when it is in these words it can hardly be accepted. But if it were in words simply saying that this matter should be taken under review and consideration given to it the rather short response to that would have been, I fancy: well, that is what is being done.


Gordon Francis Higgins: May I ask the hon. member
another question? Is not the wording he suggests only required when expenditures of money are necessary?


Ralph Maybank: I am not talking about whether or not it is legally satisfactory. It is quite satisfactory, legally. .


Gordon Francis Higgins: What is the objection?


Ralph Maybank: Otherwise a point of order would have been raised. It is quite satisfactory in that way.


Gordon Francis Higgins: What is the objection?


Ralph Maybank: I know the hon. gentleman does not want me to repeat what I have said and thus occupy time thereby. I would probably only say over again what I have already said, and I believe that if he does not fully understand what I have been saying .upon reading it in Hansard he will-


Gordon Francis Higgins: I hope.


Ralph Maybank: I hope. We at least join with each other there when the hon. member says "I hope".

Having spoken of the possibility of amending the treaty, I do think a person ought to give us some warning with respect to it. Every person is familiar with attempts that have been made to change a law. At times some little almost inconsequential change is desired in some statute. And what do we find? Well, we find that when that is pressed a great many other changes are suggested, and after they all pile up those who have had the idea of changing the statute change their minds and say, I think we had better not open up the statute at all. Every person in the house must, I feel sure, have experienced that sort of thing.
The same sort of thing is a danger with regard to a treaty. I have not made any treaties, nor revised any treaties; but common sense teaches any person that when you go to a contracting party to an agreement of this sort you may be met with quite a number of proposals by the other contracting party which in effect he would be offering as a quid pro quo to his agreement to do that which you are asking him to do. All the people of the New England states, and in fact all of the people of all of the states, would have the right to come forward and make proposals in case we attempt to open this treaty. Likewise, numbers of the other provinces are interested, and we might expect the same sort of thing there; consequently, it does seem to me that in any attempt to open up the treaty we should proceed most cautiously and before we actually ask for something find out, if we can, what the answer would be. Whether there would be any counter-proposals, whether if there were any counter-proposals we would like them or dislike them, because we wish to make sure in any discussion about the revision of this treaty that our second condition would not be worse than the first. I think that concludes what I wish to say on the resolution, with the exception of some comments I would make concerning some pencilled notes I have before me. I shall deal with what they bring to mind.
The leader of the opposition spoke about these birds becoming extinct. My information from ornithologists is that they are a slow-producing bird. Apparently the pair, male and female, produce only one chick a year, and this means perhaps only five or six in a lifetime.
Birds of this kind are confronted with many hazards, in addition to that offered by the gun. One hon. member suggested that Scotch engineers on liners kill a great many of them with oil. It would seem therefore that they are certainly not a type of bird which increases quickly. I do not say this to the

house with any authority, because I am not an ornithologist. However, since the matter has been discussed it has come to my mind that ornithologists have told me what I am now stating.
There has also been some question as to whether these birds are migratory or not. I think it was the hon. member for Lethbridge (Mr. Blackmore) who suggested that they are not, that therefore the law should not apply to them, and that the treaty did not apply.
The difficulty is that in the treaty they are mentioned by name. Whether they are migratory or not, in fact, does not matter, because the name is mentioned. However, if indeed it can be shown that these are not true migratory birds, then of course there would be a good opportunity for having them removed from the treaty in any negotiation which might be started.
I return to what I said at the outset. I believe every person who considers this matter at all, quite aside from what was expressed so eloquently by various members who supported the resolution, must view this problem with a great deal of sympathy for the people involved. Let me assure Canadians from Newfoundland that every other kind of Canadian with whom I have spoken has that attitude in mind toward the problem.
The only question is one of practicality. If it turns out to be practical to bring relief, then I feel sure the people of Newfoundland may expect it. If it is not practical, then I feel sure they are the kind of people who will accept the fact of impracticability.


Robert Henry Winters: Mr. Speaker,
perhaps I should say a few words on the resolution because of the fact that the administration of the Migratory Birds Convention Act comes within the Department of Resources and Development.
As was said previously, this question has been considered for some time. A few months ago the hon. member for Burin-Burgeo (Mr. Carter) spoke to me and wrote me a letter in which he told me of the dire distress of some of the people of Newfoundland because they were now unable to shoot turrs, since entering confederation. The hon. member for Trinity-Conception (Mr. Stick) also spoke to me, as have others. Then the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. Higgins) placed his resolution on the order paper, following which we had a number of discussions which were helpful to me, and I hope they were helpful to him.
14, 1951	1259
Migratory Birds Convention Act
His position was that he wanted to know the attitude of the department with respect to the administration of the act and the convention. We arranged for Dr. Lewis, who is most directly concerned with the administration, to spend some time with the hon. member. The results of the conversation they had have been made known in the chamber today. We have enjoyed the dissertation of the hon. member for St. John's East just as we have that of the hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Browne). I think all hon. members who have spoken, from both sides of the house, have added to our knowledge of the problem facing the people of Newfoundland and especially the hardships they undergo in the wintertime when their normal sources of food are not available to them. I believe certain light has been shed on the subject which will be helpful to the people of Newfoundland in understanding the position of the federal government in the [DOT] matter.
When the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew) spoke it seemed to me that he grouped all these birds together as migratory game birds, and implied that there was an open season on all of them. The fact of the matter is that in article I of the migratory birds treaty there are three general classifications, the first of which is migratory game birds; the second, migratory insectivorous birds; and the third, other migratory non-game birds.
The murre or turr is one of those birds classified as a migratory non-game bird, and therefore not eligible for shooting at any season of the year. There are however a number of other birds under the act and on which there is an open season. These birds can be shot by the people of Newfoundland and elsewhere in the seasons prescribed.
Perhaps it might be helpful if I were to mention again the names of the birds set out in the resolution standing in the name of the hon. member for St. John's East, and place on record the names by which they are commonly known in Newfoundland, and by which they are known ordinarily elsewhere. For example, there is the hown which, in Newfoundland, is known as the hown, but which is known elsewhere as the old squaw duck. In Burin and the Burin peninsula the open season is December 5 to February 28, and for the remainder of Newfoundland from December 5 to December 28; in Labrador it is from October 2 to December 26.


Gordon Francis Higgins: If I might interrupt; I placed a table on Hansard giving that information.


Robert Henry Winters: I thought it would be valuable to the people of Newfoundland to indicate

Migratory Birds Convention Act the position with respect to their permission to shoot these birds.


Leonard T. Stick: No mention has been made of bullbirds, or what are commonly known in Newfoundland as bullbirds. Neither Dr. Lewis nor any hon. member who has spoken has mentioned that bird, one which is shot more than any other type of bird in Newfoundland. With all the knowledge and wisdom shown in the chamber this afternoon on this subject there has been no mention of the bullbird.


Robert Henry Winters: I am sure hon. members will be happy indeed to have that information.


Leonard T. Stick: I will give it to you after.


Robert Henry Winters: Prior to the time this act and treaty became effective each province and each state of the union had its own laws and regulations with respect to the shooting of migratory birds. It was an almost chaotic situation, brought about because there was no pattern or uniformity across either of our countries. It was only after the greatest amount of work and effort that there was a sufficient degree of reconciliation in ideas and attitudes and the Migratory Birds Convention Act was passed.
I believe it is the general consensus that this act has served a very useful purpose indeed, and that any attempt to open it up in a way such as to destroy its effectiveness would not be in the public interest, but that on the contrary it would be quite harmful both from the point of view of humans and the birds. The question has been raised as to whether or not the murre or turr is in fact a migratory bird. Hon. members who have spoken this afternoon have said that it is not, and that it does not go south of the border between Canada and the United States. Expert opinion however is to the contrary-that it is a migratory bird, in fact, as well as being named as such in the convention. It is also known to get as far south as Long Island in considerable numbers. It has been suggested that there has been no depletion. Those who are closely associated with the problem say that the reason there has been no depletion in Newfoundland; is that the murres have been protected elsewhere under the terms of the Migratory Birds Convention Act.
Be that as it may, there still would be some hardship in Newfoundland under complete prohibition. That was recognized when Newfoundland came into confederation. Once confederation became a fact the officials of the then department of mines and resources discussed every phase of the matter with the appropriate officials of the government of Newfoundland. The first year after


confederation the terms of the Migratory Birds Convention Act were not applied to Newfoundland in so far as the shooting of turrs was concerned. During the second year one area was declared to be exempt and the terms of the act were put into effect in another area. The area that was exempted was one in which there was the greatest number of isolated outports where the people would have had the most difficulty obtaining a living if they did not have the opportunity to shoot turrs. There was a common understanding, with the full knowledge of the officials in Newfoundland, that appropriate steps would have to be taken to apply gradually the terms of the convention.
The leader of the opposition said that exceptions could be made and that exceptions had been made. An exception was made to avoid hardship and the too great dislocation that would have occurred had the terms been applied suddenly. I am sure that hon. members will agree that it would be a mistake to try to set up separate regulations for each province because that would only return us to the chaotic conditions that prevailed before 1916.
There are two extremes in contemplating the problem. On the one hand, if there is complete prohibition and no shooting of turrs is permitted, they will not be destroyed but neither will they be available for human consumption. On the other hand, if there is no restriction the danger is that they will be wiped out altogether, in which case they would not be available for human needs. I would think that the practical way is to see to it that we conform to the spirit of the Migratory Birds Convention Act; that we seek no amendment that would open it up to the possibility of destroying its effectiveness altogether, but on the other hand see to it that no citizen of Newfoundland suffer undue hardship or perhaps starvation because he is denied the opportunity to shoot turrs when there is no other source of food available to him.
The act has been administered with that thought in mind. The United States authorities have been sympathetic to the position of the Newfoundland people, and I am sure they will continue to be. We will be happy indeed to discuss with them and see how far they are prepared to accept suggestions which will make it possible for the people of Newfoundland to continue to take turrs when there are conditions of extreme hardship.
On the other hand, I think it is only fair to the people of Newfoundland to tell them that although the administration will be most sympathetic, once the administration has been

determined they will be required to abide by it. I know that they are law-abiding people from my own experience and long association with them. I know they will obey the law once it has been proved to them that it is in their own interests to do so.


Gordon Francis Higgins: Hungry people have a hard job being law-abiding.


Robert Henry Winters: They may be hungry people to some extent, but I know also that they are fine law-abiding people. I have had a discussion with the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) in connection with this problem and perhaps in the minute or two remaining he will agree to tell the house the extent to which his department can go in approaching the officials of the United States on this problem.


Hon. L. B. Pearson (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, if I intervene in this discussion it is not because I know much about turrs or even about bull-birds. The act would have to be changed if the purposes of this resolution are to be achieved and, as has been pointed out, that act is based on an international convention. An amendment to that convention would require approaching the government of the United States.
I think it has been demonstrated by the discussion this afternoon that the feeling of this house is that some appropriate discussion should take place between the representatives of this government and the appropriate representatives of the United States government with a view to ascertaining whether these rights, which it has been pointed out go back to 1497, can be preserved,
14, 1951
Migratory Birds Convention Act having regard to the desirability of maintaining the objectives and purposes of the convention in question. It has been shown to be an advantageous convention to both Canada and the United States.
I do not think that the motion is exactly the appropriate kind of motion to achieve that result. As I understand it, it would require an amendment to this convention in order to eliminate this prohibition we are talking about in so far as Newfoundland is concerned. That may not be possible. But it might be possible to achieve that objective in another way. All I wish to say this afternoon on behalf of the government is that without any delay we will enter into discussions with representatives of the United States to see if the objectives of this motion which have received such general support in the house can be achieved.


Gordon Francis Higgins: I should like to correct an
impression left by the hon. member for Trinity-Conception (Mr. Stick) that bullbirds were not included in this resolution. For the hon. member's benefit may I say that the bullbird is known as the dovekie and the dovekie is a member of the diver family, and divers are included in the resolution.
On motion of Mr. Pearson the debate was adjourned.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Alphonse Fournier: Tomorrow we will
take up Bill No. 147, to amend the Foreign Exchange Control Act, Bill No. 5, to amend the Canadian Wheat Board Act, and Bill No. 79, respecting Indians.


[Stage Direction]
At six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.


[Stage Direction]
"The Two Water-mills"

[Stage Direction]
Ceremony in the Hall of Fame, Parliament Buildings, Ottawa, Wednesday, March 14, 1951
His Excellency The Governor General Of Canada: Mr. Speaker of the Senate, Mr. Speaker 'of the House of Commons, Prime Minister, Mr. Ambassador, General Crerar, Ladies and Gentlemen:
I have been asked by my ministers to preside at this ceremony at which one of the greatest of Dutch paintings-the gift of the people of The Netherlands to the people of Canada-is to be unveiled and added to the national treasures of our country.
The people of The Netherlands have demonstrated in many ways their appreciation of the share which Canadians had in liberating their nation during the last war. At the annual memorial services held in the beautifully maintained Canadian military cemeteries, there are always large throngs of Dutch people whose presence manifests the depth of public feeling. In a more intimate manner-which touches very directly the hearts of the mothers and fathers, the widows and children of those who lie buried there- Dutch men and women, boys and girls, have year after year placed flowers on individual graves and written to the next of kin in Canada of the loving care so spontaneously offered.
These tributes to Canada's sons who made the supreme sacrifice have been greatly appreciated here in Canada. So have the many evidences of friendship, individual and national, given by the Dutch people to Canadians and to Canada. We recognize, however, the desire of the people of The Netherlands to give symbolic and tangible expression to the bond between our two peoples. We know how deep is the attachment of the Dutch people to the paintings of their old masters. Consequently we realize that only tremendous generosity and deep friendship prompted the gift to Canada of this national treasure
of The Netherlands, "The Two Water-mills", this masterpiece of the great Meindert Hobbema. This knowledge enhances our appreciation of the outstanding beauty of the landscape and gives greater significance to the unanimity of The Netherlands parliament in sanctioning this priceless gift.
I know that the Canadian people were pleased that Her Majesty the Queen of The Netherlands should have made the presentation personally to the Canadian Ambassador. As Princess Juliana, the queen endeared herself to Canadians, during her residence amongst us in the war years, because of her nobility of character, charm of manner and democratic attitude. Her personal association with the gift adds to its value.
As Canada and The Netherlands share the tradition of parliamentary democracy, it is particularly appropriate that this painting should, in accordance with the wishes of The Netherlands government, hang in the houses of parliament of Canada. In this Hall of Fame "The Two Water-mills" will be seen by countless visitors every year. I believe the painting will convey a double message. It will speak from the depth of its loveliness to all who appreciate beauty and, at the same time, it will constantly recall the very special ties which connect Canada and The Netherlands. To you, Mr. Speaker of the Senate, and to you, Mr. Speaker of the House of Commons, who preside over the two houses of parliament, I entrust this painting, which will remain in your custody in trust for the people of Canada.
Would you, Mr. Ambassador, kindly convey to Her Majesty and to your government and to the people of The Netherlands how profoundly touched are all Canadians by this gift, and even more by the spirit which inspired it? And would you add that in the

minds of the Canadian people there has not been merely the transfer of a painting from one friendly country to another, but rather that what was once the national treasure of one nation has become the national treasure of two nations. To Canadians, Hobbema's "The Two Water-mills" will be known as "The Dutch painting".
I believe the people of Canada will consider it most fitting that I should call now upon General Crerar, who was commander in chief of the Canadian army of liberation, to unveil this painting.
General H. D. G. Crerar: Your Excellencies, Mr. Speaker of the Senate, Mr. Speaker of the House of Commons, Prime Minister, Mr. Ambassador, Members of the Senate and of the House of Commons, Ladies and Gentlemen:
To unveil, at the behest of Your Excellency, this priceless painting by Hobbema, given by The Netherlands to Canada in commemoration of the part played by Canada's armed forces in the liberation of The Netherlands people in 1944 and 1945, is a signal honour. It is an honour which I am proud to acknowledge, not in any personal sense, but as a representative of the many thousand Canadian servicemen and women who gave their utmost, and, in many cases, their all, in order to assure the restoration of freedom to a people who for centuries have cherished it.
It was in September, 1944, that the Canadian army first reached Dutch territory and commenced the bitter fighting which terminated some weeks later in the freeing of the Scheldt estuary thus opening to allied use the great port of Antwerp. From that time, on through the heavy battles in February, March and April of 1945, and until the return to Canada of its remaining troops in the spring of 1946, those in the Canadian army had full opportunity to learn to know the Dutch people. We found them stalwart and uncomplaining in distress, loyal and courageous in their beliefs, constant and warmhearted in their friendships. This gift would indicate that the warm memories we Canadians bear for them are reciprocated by those they retain of us.
There is deep symbolism in the fact that the Canadian and Dutch flags, which flew side by side on the battlefields of a few years ago, are seen together again, today, flanking this peaceful landscape of The Netherlands,
so magnificently reproduced on canvas by that master painter, Meindert Hobbema.
This unique gift, from one country to another, I now unveil.
His Excellency The Netherlands Ambassador: Your Excellency, Mr. Speaker of the Senate, Mr. Speaker of the House of Commons, Prime Minister, Members of the Senate and of the House of Commons, Ladies and Gentlemen:
After the very kind words which Your Excellency has just spoken on the occasion of this ceremony I feel that there is not much that I can add. But there is one thought I want .to express, namely, that I am interpreting the feelings of my country's government and its people when I say that we are proud of and grateful for the place which the Canadian government have selected to hang this Hobbema painting. For the Hall of Fame is the very heart of hearts of the seat of the Canadian government. No more honourable place could be thought of than here on parliament hill-in the very centre of the houses of parliament, representing the people of Canada.
Hobbema's painting "The Two Water-mills" is a good example of the achievements of Dutch artists in the seventeenth century. It was an age when my country was reaping rich cultural benefits of its recent fight for freedom of conscience and religion in an age when these concepts were still far from commonplace.
I think that it is quite fitting, therefore, that this painting should henceforth hang in this place overlooking the Ottawa river because it was the blood of Canadians that helped to restore to us our lost freedom during the second world war, when a latter day tyranny had taken from us what we prized most.
It will be a most agreeable duty to report to Her Majesty Queen Juliana, who found with her children such a hospitable sanctuary in Canada during the second world war, and to our people at home, as requested by Your Excellency, on the impressive and solemn ceremony enacted here this afternoon and on the great appreciation shown today for this symbol of Dutch gratitude.
I hope that Hobbema's masterpiece will continue to hang in this place for centuries to come as a tangible symbol of the lasting friendship between our two countries.
[Stage Direction]
Thursday, March 15, 1951